UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


MOTION  PICTURES 


A  Study 
In  Social  Legislation 


BY 

DONALD  YOUNG,   PH.D. 

WHARTON  SCHOOL,  UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


PRINTED  BY 

WESTBROOK  PUBLISHING  CO. 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

1922 


MOTION  PICTURE  itt  M  O 

366  MADISON  AVEN 
NEW  YORK,  N 


LARRY    EDMUNDS    BOOKSHOP 

6658   HOLLYWOOD  BLVD 

HOLLYWOOD  28.  CALIF. 

HO.    3-3273 

WORLD'S  LARGEST  COLLECTION 
OF  BOOKS  ON  MOTION  PICTURES 


T 


Co 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

I 

MOTION  PICTURES  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  AMERICAN  ENVIRONMENT 1 

II 
SOCIAL  STANDARDS  OF  THE  MOTION  PICTURE  INDUSTRY  AND  THE  PUBLIC.  . .       8 

III 
CONFORMITY  OF  MOTION  PICTURES  TO  THE  ACCEPTED  SOCIAL  STANDARDS  .     2 1 

IV 
EFFECTS  OF  MOTION  PICTURES  ON  THE  AMERICAN  PEOPLE 34 

V 
THE  NATIONAL  BOARD  OF  REVIEW  OF  MOTION  PICTURES 42 

VI 
FEDERAL  LEGISLATION 53 

VII 

LOCAL  LEGISLATION;  Municipal  Regulation 60 

VIII 
LOCAL  LEGISLATION;  State  Boards  of  Censorship 64 

IX 
SUMMARY . .  82 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  1 

I 
MOTION  PICTURES  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  AMERICAN  ENVIRONMENT 

"THREE  billion  is  our  estimate  of  the  annual  admissions  to 
motion  picture  houses  in  the  United  States,"  says  an  official  of 
the  Famous  Players-Lask^y  Corporation,  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant motion  picture  producing  corporations  in  the  world.  An 
editor  of  the  Motion  Picture  News,  one  of  the  leading  American 
trade  journals,  believes  that  a  more  accurate  estimate  is  four 
billion  for  the  yearly  attendance,  with  a  corresponding  daily 
attendance  of  from  twelve  to  fifteen  million,  or  approximately 
one-eighth  of  the  entire  population  of  the  country  per  day.  The 
United  States  Federal  Trade  Commission  in  a  recent  investiga- 
tion of  the  industry  decided  that  a  daily  attendance  of  twenty 
million  was  not  an  unreasonable  estimate. '  This  would  lead  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  annual  attendance  approaches  six  billion, 
a  total  twice  as  great  as  that  offered  by  Famous  Players-Lask^y.  * 
There  seems  to  be  little  or  no  conclusive  evidence  to  support  any 
of  these  estimates.  For  our  purposes  their  importance  lies  not 
in  their  absolute  accuracy,  but  in  the  fact  that  men  in  responsible 
positions,  men  who  are  best  qualified  to  express  opinions  on  the 
subject,  are  willing  to  estimate  the  industry  as  one  of  the  leading 
enterprises  in  the  country  with  a  patronage  many  times  the  total 
population  of  the  country. 

An  annual  motion  picture  directory  claims  to  have  listed 
20,006  motion  picture  theatres  with  addresses,  in  addition  to 
3,673  other  theatres  which  present  motion  pictures  not  ex<  lusively 
but  as  a  side  line  supplementing  a  traveling  company  business.  * 

1  United  States  Federal  Trade  Commission,  Docket  Number  835,  August 
30,  1921,  Washington,  D.  C. 

2  A  fairly  reliable  estimate  places  the  daily  attendance  for  1916  between 
eight  and  ten  million.     The  apparent  increase  is  significant.     See  House  of 

"Representatives,  Hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Education,  January  13-19, 
1916,  p.  203. 

»  Julius  Cahn,  Gus  Hill,  Theatrical  Guide  and  Motion  Picture  Directory,  1921, 
and  Supplement  for  1922. 


2  MOTION  PICTURES 

The  territory  covered  by  these  23,679  theatres,  however,  includes 
Canada,  Porto  Rico  and  Alaska,  as  well  as  the  United  States 
proper.  Wid's  Daily,  a  paper  devoted  entirely  to  motion  picture 
news,  estimates  that  there  are  about  14,000  recognized  motion 
picture  theatres  in  the  United  States,  according  to  a  statement 
made  by  the  business  manager.  An  editor  of  the  Motion  Picture 
News  agrees  with  this  estimate.  The  publicity  director  of  the 
National  Association  of  the  Motion  Picture  Industry,  Inc.,  is 
unable  to  make  any  more  definite  estimate  than  to  say  that  the 
number  varies  from  14,000  to  17,000.  The  Federal  Trade  Com- 
mission has  decided  on  the  larger  figure  of  18,000  established 
motion  picture  theatres  in  the  United  States. *  Building  permits 
show  more  than  2,700  new  theatres  in  the  course  of  construction.  * 
Again  we  find  that  no  agreement  exists  concerning  motion  picture 
statistics.  On  the  basis  of  such  scattering  information  as  is 
available  it  is  probable  that  18,000  is  a  closer  guess  than  any  of 
the  other  guesses  which  have  been  considered. 3  The  seating 
capacity  of  these  theatres  varies  from  200  or  less  to  over  5,000, 
though  there  are  only  a  few  that  come  near  the  latter  figure. 
It  is  easily  seen  that  the  motion  picture  as  a  part  of  our  idea- 
forming  environment  is  not  a  factor  to  be  neglected. 

In  order  to  demonstrate  that  motion  pictures  are  not  a  mere 
local  phenomenon  thriving  only  in  the  United  States,  attention 
may  be  called  to  the  Australian  statistics  for  the  year  1920. 
"The  total  attendance  at  motion  picture  theatres  during  the  last 
year  was  67,466,657,  or  more  than  thirteen  times  the  entire 
population  of  the  country,  while  the  revenues  paid  to  the  state 
in  the  form  of  taxes  were  almost  half  the  entire  sum  collected 
from  all  amusement  enterprises  during  the  year."  The  total 
attendance  at  all  amusements  in  Australia  during  the  year  was 

1  United  States  Federal  Trade  Commission,  Docket  Number  835,  August 
30,  1921,  Washington,  D.  C. 

1  Moving  Picture  World,  Vol.  51,  No.  7,  August  13,  1921,  p.  689. 

3  See  appendix  A  for  detailed  information  concerning  the  number  and 
distribution  of  motion  picture  theatres. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  3 

95,866,620,  or  about  nineteen  times  the  entire  population,  which 
in  round  numbers  was  5,000,000. l 

It  is  hardly  necessary  that  any  similar  figures  be  quoted  for 
European  and  other  countries.  It  is  not  within  the  scope  of 
this  work  to  outline  the  international  development  of  the  industry 
except  when  such  an  exposition  would  aid  in  interpreting  its 
development  in  this  country.  For  that  purpose  it  is  sufficient 
to  say  that  the  development  of  motion  pictures  has  been  practi- 
cally the  same  throughout  the  civilized  world,  though  more 
gradual  in  some  places  than  in  others. 2 

Pick  up  almost  any  issue  of  any  trade  journal,  and  considerable 
space  will  be  found  to  be  devoted  to  the  importance  of  foreign 
competition,  to  the  lessons  taught  by  the  experience  of  foreign 
producers  and  exhibitors.  The  Exhibitors'  Herald,  Motion 
Picture  News,  Exhibitors'  Trade  Review,  Moving  Picture  World, 
and  Wid's  Daily,  the  leading  motion  picture  trade  journals,  are 
constantly  fighting  existing  and  proposed  tariff  measures  on  raw 
and  exposed  film  for  import  and  export.  The  competition  of 
English,  Italian,  Belgian  and  German  producers  is  being  care- 
fully watched  by  these  journals.  They  do  not  consider  motion 
pictures  an  American  institution  with  a  few  parallel  developments 
in  foreign  countries.  They  recognize  that  the  American  industry, 
while  it  may  have  progressed  more  rapidly  in  so  far  as  its  size 
is  concerned,  is  not  economically,  mechanically  or  artistically 
independent,  but  is  a  part  of  a  much  broader  movement. 

It  has  been  shown  that  motion  pictures  are  an  important  part 
of  the  environment  of  the  people  of  this  country,  and  of  those 

1  Moving  Picture  World,  Vol.  51,  No.  8,  August  20,  1921,  p.  790. 

1  The  export  and  import  figures  in  Appendix  B,  taken  from  the  United 
States  Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce, 
Commerce  Reports,  January  2,  1922,  pp.  34  and  35,  emphasize  the  rapid 
growth  of  the  international  interdependence  of  motion  picture  interests. 


4  MOTION  PICTURES 

of  other  civilized  countries  as  well. l  The  statistics  quoted  in 
support  of  this  contention  are  in  many  cases  of  questionable 
accuracy  due  to  the  fact  that  the  development  of  the  industry 
has  been  both  rapid  and  recent,  but  they  are  the  best  available, 
and  are  vouched  for  by  leading  members  of  the  trade,  men  who 
have  been  in  positions  to  know  conditions.  In  no  case,  except- 
ing the  import  and  export  figures  of  the  United  States  Department 
of  Commerce,  were  any  estimates  included  unless  at  least  two 
other  estimates  were  used  as  checks  on  their  accuracy.  The 
highest  estimate  was  never  quoted,  no  matter  how  plausible 
were  the  arguments  on  which  it  was  based.  In  some  cases  we 
have  figures  which  are  possibly  too  high.  In  other  cases,  we 
may  have  been  too  conservative.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  how- 
ever, that  the  recent  findings  of  the  United  States  Federal  Trade 
Commission  are  as  optimistic  as  are  the  trade  statements  which 
have  been  quoted  in  this  report.  The  material  is  significant 
because  responsible  men  are  willing  to  issue  statistics  showing 
the  industry  to  be  of  such  great  size,  and  do  so  without  fear  of 
radical  refutation.  In  the  last  analysis,  for  that  matter,  such 
statistics  are  not  essential  in  so  far  as  we  are  here  concerned 
except  as  a  general  indication  of  the  extent  of  the  motion  picture's 
influence  for  purposes  of  comparison  with  other  idea -forming 

1  Owing  to  the  recent  and  rapid  development  of  the  motion  picture  industry , 
and  the  consequent  rarity  of  authoritative  and  comprehensive  works  on  the 
problems  connected  with  it,  it  has  been  deemed  inadvisable  to  attempt  to 
include  a  bibliography  as  a  part  of  this  study.  Anyone  who  may  wish  to  go 
more  deeply  into  the  subject  is  referred  to  the  following  lists  of  references 
which,  while'not  so  extensive  as  might  possibly  be  desirable,  afford  a  starting 
point  for  further  readings: 

Department  of  the  Interior,  Bureau  of  Education,  "List  of  References  on  the 
Use  of  Pictures  in  Education,"  Library  Leaflet  No.  13,  December,  1920, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

Cannon,  Lucius  H.,  "Motion  Pictures,  Laws,  Ordinances  and  Regulations." 
Contains  a  list  of  references  compiled  by  Melitta  Diez  Peschke,  St.  Louis 
Public  Library,  July,  1920.  This  list  has  been  reproduced  in  Wid's  Year 
Book  for  1920,  p.  288b. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  5 

institutions,  for  the  great  attendance  at  the  numerous  motion  \ 
picture  theatres  in  the  United  States  is  so  well  known  that  it 
needs  no  proof. 

This  important  industry  is  of  interest  to  society  from  three 
points  of  view.  First,  there  are  the  problems  of  production, 
distribution  and  exhibition.  These  problems,  however,  concern 
us  here  only  in  so  far  as  they  have  some  direct  bearing  on  the 
social  as  distinguished  from  the  economic  questions  involved  in 
a  study  of  motion  pictures.  For  example,  the  mechanics  of 
photography  and  projection  in  themselves  have  no  significance 
in  a  social  study,  but  it  is  of  considerable  importance  to  know 
that  practically  all  inventions  of  mechanisms  which  have  per- 
mitted the  establishment  of  the  present  industry  have  been 
made  in  the  past  twenty  years. 1  The  allegation  of  the  Federal 
Trade  Commission  that  a  controlling  interest  in  the  industry  is 
concentrated  in  one  small  central  group  of  men  is  primarily 
an  economic  question,  but  it  is  an  economic  question  which  has 
social  aspects  which  are  evident  when  one  stops  to  think  that, 
due  to  this  concentration,  it  may  be  within  the  power  of  a  very 
few  men  to  say  what  type  of  picture  will  be  shown  in  a  majority 
of  theatres,  and  that  the  pictures  produced  by  these  same  men 
will  be  shown,  though  not  exclusively,  in  98  per  cent,  of  the 
theatres  of  this  country,  according  to  their  own  advertisements. 
The  economic  side,  while  not  our  primary  interest,  may  have 
a  distinct  bearing  on  the  social  aspects  of  motion  pictures. 

Secondly,  there  is  the  problem  of  the  health  of  the  patrons- 
Controversies  concerning  the  effect  of  motion  pictures  on  the  eyes  ^ 
have  been  common  in  recent  years,  and  still  seem  to  be  unsettled  I 
though  the  weight  of  opinion  inclines  in  favor  of  the  harmlessness  \ 
of  motion  pictures  except  in  the  comparatively  few  instances  J 

1  An  appreciation  of  the  rapid  development  of  the  motion  picture  may  be 
gained  by  reading  any  of  the  innumerable  magazine  articles  of  ten  or  fifteen 
years  ago  describing  its  wonders,  and  comparing  the  facts  there  presented 
with  the  well-known  achievements  of  today.  An  example  of  the  old  type  of 
article  is  one  by  Charles  B.  Brewer,  The  Widening  Field  of  the  Moving 
Picture,  Century,  Vol.  LXXXVI,  No.  1,  May,  1913. 


6  MOTION  PICTURES 

where  eyesight  is  badly  defective  to  begin  with.  Minute 
regulations  intended  to  protect  the  patrons  from  the  dangers 
incident  to  fires  in  public  places  are  provided  by  every  state  and 
city  in  the  form  of  state  laws,  city  ordinances  or  the  edicts  of 
local  authorities.  Building  regulations  usually  specify  a  minimum 
of  ventilation.  The  problem  of  sanitation  is  not  a  simple  one. 
The  fact  that  all  theatres  in  infected  areas  were  closed  by  govern- 
ment order  during  the  recent  influenza  epidemic  is  an  indication 
of  the  importance  of  this  side  of  the  question.  However,  such 
problems  are  technical  medical  and  building  problems,  and 
mainly  administrative.  They  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  a 
social  study  of  this  nature. 

Finally,  we  have  the  problems  of  social  standards,  of  ideals,  of 

morals.     Social  standards  are  influenced  by  motion  pictures  by 

the  pictures   themselves,   that  is,   by  the  mental  impressions 

received  by  the  audiences  from  the  screen  portrayals  of  life,  and 

by  the  peculiar  physical  conditions  imposed  by  motion  picture 

theatres  on   the  patrons.     There   is  an   undoubted   effect  on 

standards  of  conduct  resulting  from  the  fact  that  the  audience, 

often  young  boys  and  girls,  are  packed  in  narrow  seats,  close 

together,  in  a  darkened  room. l     New  words  and  phrases  are 

;  coined  only  to  meet  new  situations,  and  it  is  significant  that  the 

;  phrases,  "movie  masher"  and  "knee  flirtation"  are  coming  into 

•  use. 

It  is,  therefore,  with  the  effects  of  the  pictures  themselves  on 
those  who  view  them  that  we  have  to  deal.  The  other  phases 
are  equally  important,  but  of  a  different  nature.  The  problems 
of  social  standards  resulting  from  the  physical  features  of 
motion  picture  houses,  such  as  those  arising  from  close  seating  in 
semi-darkened  theatres,  are  almost  wholly  administrative,  as 

1  "No  one  considering  the  effect  of  moving  pictures  can  neglect  the  possi- 
bilities for  bad  behavior  which  occur  through  the  darkness  of  the  hall  in 
which  the  pictures  are  shown.  Under  cover  of  dimness,  evil  communications 
readily  pass  and  bdd  habits  are  taught.  Moving  picture  theatres  are  favorite 
places  for  the  teaching  of  homosexual  practices."  Healy,  Wm.,  The  Indi- 
vidual Delinquent,  p.  308. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  7 

as  are  the  problems  of  the  elimination  of  fire,  mob,  building  and 
health  risks.  In  principle  it  is  generally  agreed  that  such  risks 
should  be  minimized. 

No  such  agreement  exists  in  the  consideration  of  the  effect  of 
the  pictures  on  those  who  see  them.  The  industry,  the  educators, 
the  churchmen,  the  general  public,  all  are  divided  and  fighting 
among  themselves  over  questions  of  principle  involved.  The 
method  of  fighting  in  vogue  is  that  of  flat  contradiction  of  fact, 
although  the  facts  do  not  seem  to  be  difficult  to  obtain  if  wanted. 
Possibly  they  are  not  wanted.  There  is  indeed  no  question  but 
that  many  elemental  facts,  some  of  which  it  is  inconceivable  that 
anyone  financially  interested  in  the  industry  can  have  over- 
.  looked,  have  either  been  overlooked  or  deliberately  disregarded. 
One  of  these,  for  example,  is  the  undoubted  constitutionality  of 
censorship  through  the  previewing  of  pictures.  Though  there 
have  been  two  Supreme  Court  decisions  on  this  question,  many 
debaters  against  censorship  use  the  plea  of  unconstitutionality 
as  one  of  their  main  arguments.  As  a  result  of  such  attitudes 
it  is  necessary  to  study  the  facts  themselves,  and  there  are  plenty 
available  for  study,  rather  than  to  argue  on  a  basis  of  pure 
principle,  if  any  sound  conclusions  are  to  be  reached. 


MOTION  PICTURES 


II 


SOCIAL  STANDARDS  OF  THE  MOTION  PICTURE  INDUSTRY 
AND  THE  PUBLIC 

I  IT  was  one  of  the  original  purposes  of  this  paper  to  develop  a 
set  of  social  standards  whereby  to  judge  the  deviation  of  life 
as  portrayed  on  the  screen  from  normal  conduct,  and  then  to 
determine  the  probable  social  effects  of  the  existing  types  of 
, motion  pictures.  With  this  end  in  view,  letters  were  written  to 
various  legal  boards  of  censorship  asking  for  the  rules  by  which 
they  judged  films.  Pennsylvania  sent  a  detailed  printed  state- 
ment of  acts  and  situations  which  were  not  permitted  in  pictures 
passed  by  its  board  of  censorship.  Ohio,  on  the  other  hand, 
maintained  that  a  request  for  standards  was  impossible  of 
fulfilment,  on  the  grounds  that  no  absolute  standards  could  be 
established,  and  that  even  if  any  were  established,  adherence  to 
them  would  be  folly.  Other  replies  received  were  similar  to 
one  or  the  other  of  these  two.  Upon  further  investigation, 
however,  it  is  noticed  that  those  boards  of  censorship  which  do 
issue  formal  standards  specifically  reserve  the  right  to  disregard 
them  whenever  they  deem  it  necessary.  The  Pennsylvania 
board,  for  example,  in  the  explanations  of  several  of  its  pro- 
hibitions, carefully  mentions  that  they  are  not  absolute,  but 
merely  indicative  of  what  the  board  believes  desirable  in  most 
cases.  No  case  can  be  judged  without  reference  to  factors 
outside  of  the  picture  which  might  alter  its  desirability.  This 
is  the  reason  why  practically  all  municipal  and  state  censorship 
legislation  merely  provides  that  "indecent",  "obscene",  "las- 
civious", "filthy,"  "unlawful",  "sacrilegious",  or  "immoral" 
scenes  shall  be  eliminated,  instead  of  making  more  definite 
provision  concerning  specific  undesired  acts.  It  would  be  folly 
for  them  to  make  more  definite  provision,  especially  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  courts  have  held  that  the  above  terms  are 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  9 

sufficiently  definite  for  ordinary  purposes. 1  Fixed  standards, 
rigidly  applied,  due  to  the  fact  that  proper  social  standards  are 
the  result  of  and  vary  with  the  environment,  are  an  impossibility. 

The  discussion  concerning  motion  picture  standards  has  been 
kept  alive  by  four  groups  of  people.  These  are,  first,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  industry  itself;  second,  the  legal  authorities  who  super- 
vise the  showing  of  motion  pictures;  third,  miscellaneous  organiza- 
tions which  have  interested  themselves  in  motion  picture  reform; 
and,  fourth,  the  National  Board  of  Review,  which  must  be  given 
a  separate  place  in  this  classification  on  account  of  its  unique 
character.  It  is  true  that  there  also  has  been  considerable 
general  discussion  of  the  subject,  but  such  discussion  has  accom- 
plished little  that  is  tangible  except  where  it  has  developed  into 
or  allied  itself  with  one  of  the  groups  mentioned  above.  The 
value  of  such  general  criticisms  and  suggestions,  however,  should 
not  be  underestimated  on  this  account.  It  is  undoubtedly 
largely  responsible,  for  instance,  for  the  formation  and  continu- 
ance of  the  National  Board  of  Review.  It  has  also  probably 
caused  a  considerable  change  in  the  programs  of  the  members 
of  the  industry.  It  is  omitted  only  because  its  views  are  well 
represented  by  those  of  the  groups  mentioned.  This  being  true, 
a  discussion  of  the  standards  advocated  by  the  groups  mentioned 
will  be  sufficiently  inclusive  and  representative  to  show 
whether  or  not  any  general  and  fundamental  disagreement 
concerning  socially  undesirable  film  plays  is  discernible. 

The  members  of  the  trade  are  probably  the  largest  organized, 
actively  interested  group  of  all.  They  have  spent  great  amounts 
of  time,  effort  and  money  in  endeavoring  to  ascertain  what 
should  and  what  should  not  be  shown  on  the  screen.  Naturally 
their  purpose  has  not  been  to  make  certain  that  the  public 
morals  do  not  suffer  from  what  is  seen  in  the  movies.  The 
producer,  the  distributor,  the  exhibitor,  all  are  in  the  business  to 

1  See,  for  example;  Jake  Block,  Nathan  Wolf,  et  al.,  vs.  The  City  of  Chicago, 
239  Illinois  Supreme  Court  Reports,  251;  Mutual  Film  Corporations.  Indus- 
trial Commission  of  Ohio,  236  U.  S.  Supreme  Court  Reports,  240. 


10 


MOTION  PICTURES 


\  make  money,  and  the  motion  picture  that  they  will  show  will  be 
|  and  is  the  one  they  believe  will  draw  the  largest  crowd. l 

In  any  competitive  business  enterprise,  the  ultimate  goal  must 

be  the  greatest  possible  number  of  sales.    The  motion  picture 

industry  is  not  an  industry  apart  from  the  others.     We  cannot 

'  blindly  censure  the  producer  for  making  pictures  the  exhibitors 

will  buy  or  rent  at  the  highest  prices  nor  can  we  censure  the 

exhibitor  for  showing  the  picture  he  believes  the  public  wants, 

; '  so  long  as  there  is  reasonable  doubt  as  to  their  social  effect,  and 

|we  must  assume  that  such  doubt  exists  when  federal,  state  and 

I  local  officials  do  not  use  the  power  they  have  to  prevent  the 

exhibition  of  all  films  which  are  unquestionably  contrary  to 

'  public  policy.     Even  though  we  could  frown  upon  such  mercenary 

conduct,  we  could  not  reasonably  expect  or  hope  that  many 

men   would   voluntarily   ruin   highly   profitable   enterprises   in 

1  The  attitude  of  at  least  some  leading  motion  picture  producers  is  indicated 
by  the  following  quotations: 

"Several  weeks  ago  I  published  a  straight-from-the-shoulder  talk  entitled 
'Which  Do  You  Want?'  asking  the  exhibitors  of  America  whether  they 
preferred  clean,  wholesome  pictures  or  smutty  ones.  Instead  of  discovering 
that  95  per  cent,  favored  clean  pictures,  I  discovered  that  at  least  half,  and 
maybe  60  per  ce'nt.  want  the  pictures  to  be  'risque',  which  is  a  French  way 
of  saying  'smutty'.  The  whole  thing  was  an  eye-opener,  so  totally  different 
from  what  I  expected  that  I  am  stumped!  The  Universal  does  not  pose  as  a 
guardian  of  public  morals  or  of  public  taste.  For  that  reason  it  is  quite 
possible  that  we  may  put  out  a  picture  that  is  off-color  now  and  then  as  a 
feeler.  We  have  no  such  picture  yet,  but  it  is  easy  to  make  them." — Carl 
Laemm^le,  President  of  Universal  Film  Manufacturing  Company,  in  Moving 
Picture  Weekly,  November,  1915,  quoted  by  Chase,  William  Sheafe,  Catechism 
on  Motion  Pictures,  New  York  City,  1921. 

Similar  statements  by  equally  prominent  motion  picture  production  officials 
may  be  found  in  an  article  by  Mr.  B.  B.  Hampton  in  the  Pictorial  Review, 
February,  1921,  and  the  Congressional  Hearings  on  House  of  Representatives 
Bill  456,  January  13-19,  1916.  Careful  reading  of  articles  in  the  leading 
trade  papers  seems  to  indicate  that  the  type  of  attitude  expressed  by  the 
above  quotation  is  becoming  less  frequent,  or  at  least  it  is  an  attitude  no 
longer  so  freely  aired. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  11 

order  to  be  on  the  safe  side  of  an  argument  which  is  far  from 
settled. 

The  motion  picture  industry  is  avowedly  attempting  to 
present  the  types  of  pictures  which  the  audiences  wish  to  see. 
This  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  different  types  of  houses 
show  different  types  of  pictures.  For  example,  the  motion 
picture  houses  are  divided  into  two  classes,  the  neighborhood 
houses  and  downtown  houses.  Neighborhood  houses  include 
all  those  which  are  in  outlying  parts  of  cities  or  in  the  smaller 
cities  and  villages.  "Million  dollar  spectacles"  are  shown  primarily 
in  the  downtown  houses,  i.  e.,  those  centrally  located  in  large 
cities,  because  it  has  been  found  that  if  they  are  to  be  successful, 
such  pictures  must  derive  most  of  their  income  from  the  audiences 
which  frequent  the  downtown  houses.  Many  actors  are  known 
to  be  excellent  drawing  cards  in  the  neighborhood  theatre,  while 
in  the  centrally  located  theatre  their  pictures  are  failures.  In 
reporting  on  the  drawing  ability  of  a  picture,  the  exhibitor  is 
usually  asked  to  mention  the  type  of  audience  to  which  it  was 
shown.  The  president  of  one  of  the  largest  chains  of  theatres 
in  this  country  remarked  recently  to  the  author  that  "the 
downtown  audiences  will  stand  for  a  lot  more  sex  stuff  than  the 
neighborhood  audience,  and  they  expect  it,  too."  We  may  safely 
say  that  the  industry  is  trying  to  give  its  customers  what  they 
want,  even  though  they  may  want  questionable  products. l 

1  This  not  uncommon  statement,  that  the  motion  picture  interests  are 
giving  the  public  what  it  wants,  is  largely  true,  but  is  worthy  of  comment  as 
an  argument  against  censorship  only  to  show  that,  as  the  Lancaster  (Pa.) 
Law  and  Order  Society  pointed  out  in  an  open  letter  to  Governor  Sproul  of 
Pennsylvania,  dated  November  29,  1920,  this  is  a  condemning  admission, 
for  it  admits  that  the  industry  has  no  independent  responsibility  or  ideals, 
and  therefore  needs  to  be  watched,  and  that  "it  is  not  true  that  the  moving 
picture  men  have  no  responsibility  in  this  matter,  for  they  themselves  have 
helped  to  demoralize  the  public  taste,"  Lancaster  Law  and  Order  Society, 
Annual  Report,  1920,  p.  5. 

There  is  no  lack  of  precedent  for  the  governmental  regulation  of  industries 
which  claim  to  give  the  people  what  they  desire.  We  have  detailed  require- 
ments for  the  formation  of  corporations;  the  milk,  meat  and  general  food 
supply  is  "  previewed  " ;  many  drugs  are  minutely  regulated  in  their  distribution- 


12  MOTION  PICTURES 

No  other  generalization  as  to  the  standards  of  the  industry 
can  be  made.  There  is  no  set  of  standards  which  could  be 
applied  to  the  entire  field.  It  is,  however,  encouraging  to  note 
that  while  certain  elements  seem  to  have  no  ideals  to  which  they 
adhere,  the  leaders  in  the  industry  are  back  of  the  movement 
to  have  only  unimpeachable  pictures  shown.  Their  motive 
may  be  mainly  economic.  It  may  be  that  they  see  the  hand- 
writing on  the  wall.  Whatever  the  cause  for  their  desire  for 
clean  pictures,  that  desire  is  a  fact.  "Women  constitute  65  per 
cent,  of  your  audience.  Why  offend  them?"  says  an  advertisement 
in  a  motion  picture  annual.  "There  are  some  things  that 
cannot  be  done  safely  even  to  fill  empty  seats  in  the  summer- 
time," remarks  the  editor  of  the  Exhibitors'  Herald  in  discussing 
the  showing  of  a  "sordid  mess"  by  the  name  of  "Some  Wild 
Oats"  in  a  number  of  mid- western  theatres. l  The  bitter  edito- 
rial of  which  this  was  a  part  may  have  been  inspired  by  a  growing 
consciousness  of  the  fact  that  the  industry's  methods  of  filling 
empty  seats  are  under  fire,  but  it  is,  nevertheless,  significant, 
that  such  an  editorial  should  be  given  prominent  place  in  a 
prominent  journal.  An  executive  of  the  Realart  Company, 
after  a  ten  weeks'  tour  of  the  United  States  in  the  interests  of 
the  motion  picture  industry,  was  convinced  that  there  exists  a 
universal  sentiment  among  exhibitors  against  showing  any  but 
clean  pictures.  He  is  very  careful  to  add  that  this  virtuous 
tendency  is  not  the  result  of  a  sudden  desire  on  the  part  of  the 
exhibitors  to  protect  humanity  from  itself,  but  that  it  is  the 
result  of  new  social  conditions  which  are  eliminating  the  sala- 
cious, suggestive  picture. 2 

It  is  also  worthy  of  comment  here  that  one  large  producing 
firm  has  recently  engaged  a  well-known  experienced  censor  as  a 
permanent  member  of  its  staff  to  pass  on  its  films  before  their 
release. a  The  immediate  purpose  of  the  company  may  be  to 
save  money  by  making  their  product  "censor  proof,"  as  is  being 

1  Exhibitors'  Herald,  Vol.  XIII,  No.  11,  September  10,  1921,  p.  36. 
*  Motion  Picture  News,  Vol.  XXIV,  No.  19,  October  29,  1921,  p.  2274. 
«  Moving  Picture  World,  Vol.  XXIV,  No.  16,  October  8,  1921,  p.  1852. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  13 

attempted  by  many  other  companies,  but  coming  at  the  present 
time,  the  action  must  also  be  recognized  as  a  yielding,  be  it 
ever  so  slight,  to  an  increasing  public  demand  for  clean  pictures. 
That  the  members  of  the  motion  picture  industry  are  not 
entirely  insensible  to  the  necessity  of  and  demand  for  "clean 
pictures"  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  ^ 


of  the  Motion  Picture  Industry,  representing  the  producers  of 
a  great  majority  of  the  motion  pictures  made  in  the  United 
States,  on  March  5,  1921,  unanimously  adopted  resolutions 
condemning  the  use  of  motion  pictures  as  a  means  of  "arousing 
bawdy  emotions  or  pandering  to  a  salacious  curiosity",  or 
otherwise  endangering  the  public  welfare.  l  Provision  was  made 
that  the  resolutions  should  not  be  so  interpreted  as  to  hamper 
the  creators  of  art  in  motion  pictures. 

In  view  of  the  fire  of  criticism  which  is  being  directed  at  the 
supposed  lack  of  standards  on  the  part  of  the  motion  picture 
interests,  it  seems  advisable  to  reproduce  in  detail  ^P  j^^als 
which  they  profess  to  support.  Tha  resolutions  condemn  the 
production  of  pictures: 
"  (a)  Which  emphasize  and  exaggerate  the  sex  appeal  or  depict 

scenes  therein  exploiting  interest  in  sex  in  an  improper  or 

suggestive  form  or  manner. 
"(&)  Based    upon   white   slavery   or   commercialized   vice,    or 

scenes  showing  the  procurement  of  women  or  any  of  the 

activities  attendant  upon  this  traffic. 
"  (c)  Thematically  making  prominent  an  illicit  love  affair  which 

tends  to  make  virtue  odious  and  vice  attractive. 
"  (d)  With  scenes  which  exhibit  nakedness  or  persons  scantily 

dressed,    particularly   suggestive   bedroom   and   bathroom 

scenes  and  scenes  of  inciting  dancing. 
"  (e)  With  scenes  which  unnecessarily  prolong  expressions  or 

demonstrations  of  passionate  love. 
"  (/)  Predominantly  concerned  with  the  underworld  or  vice  and      / 

crime,  and  like  scenes,  unless  the  scenes  are  part  of  an    / 

essential  conflict  between  good  and  evil. 

1  Chase,  William  Sheafe,  Catechism  on  Motion  Pictures,  New  York  City, 
1921,  p.  21. 


14  MOTION  PICTURES 

"(g)  Of  stories  which  make  gambling  and  drunkenness  attrac- 
rf        tive,  or  of  scenes  which  show  the  use  of  narcotics  and  other 

unnatural  practices  dangerous  to  social  morality. 
"(ti)  Of  stories  and  scenes  which  may  instruct  the  morally 
•        feeble  in  methods  of  committing  crimes,  or  by  cumulative 

processes,  emphasize  crime  and  the  commission  of  crime. 
."(*)  Of  stories  or  scenes  which  ridicule  or  deprecate  public 
/        officials,  officers  of  the  law,  the  United  States  Army,  the 
United  States  Navy,  or  other  governmental  authority,  or 
which  tend  to  weaken  the  authority  of  the  law. 
"(/)  Of  stories  or  scenes  or  incidents  which  offend  religious 
belief  or  any  person,  creed  or  sect,  or  ridicule  ministers, 
J  priests,  rabbis  or  recognized  leaders  of  any  religious  sect, 
and  also  which  are  disrespectful  to  objects  or  symbols  used 
in  connection  with  any  religion. 

"  (k)  Of  stories  or  with  scenes  which  unduly  emphasize  bloodshed 
and  violence  without  justification  in  the  structure  of  the 
story. 
"(/)  Of  stories  or  with  scenes  which  are  vulgar  and  portray 

improper  gestures,  posturing  and  attitudes. 
"  (m)  With  salacious  titles  and  sub-titles  in  connection  with 
their  presentation  or  exhibition,  and  the  use  of  salacious 
advertising  matter,  photographs  and  lithographs  in  con- 
nection therewith."1 

These  standards  correspond  to  a  great  extent  with  the  pro- 

/  visions  concerning  objectionable  matter  issued  by  the  Pennsyl- 

<  vania  and  other  boards  of  censorship,  except  that  they  are  not 

so  detailed  and  make  more  allowance  for  "artistic  expression". 

The  frequent  eliminations  by  the  various  boards  of  review  from 

films  submitted  to  them  by  the  same  producers  who  signed  these 

resolutions  implies  either  a  wide  divergence  of  opinion  as  to  what 

is  injurious  to  the  public  welfare,  or  that  the  resolutions,  were 

not  binding  upon  all  of  those  who  subscribed  to  them.     Since, 

as  we  shall  see  later,  the  expressed  standards  of  practically  all 

1  Chase,  William  Sheafe,  p.  21. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  15 

boards  of  review  are  based  on  the  same  ideals  of  conduct  as 
those  expressed  in  the  above  resolutions,  the  first  possibility  is 
minimized,  though  not  eliminated.     There  is  agreement  upon  I 
what  is  socially  desirable,  but  in  actual  practice,  it  is  not  always  | 
the  socially  desirable  course  of  action  which  is  pursued. 

In  actual  practice,  in  fact,  each  company  has  its  own  standards, 
whether  it  is  a  producing  or  exhibiting  organization.  For 
example,  many  theatres,  especially  the  larger  ones,  run  over  the 
films  before  the  public  showing  and  eliminate  what  is  believed 
to  be  objectionable  to  the  audience  for  which  it  is  intended. 
This  practice  is  so  common  even  in  states  and  communities  which 
have  little  or  no  legal  censorship  that  it  excites  no  trade  comment. 
It  is  taken  for  granted  that  each  manager  will  use  his  own  judg- 
ment. Such  cuts  are  frequently  made  to  shorten  the  program 
or  to  improve  the  "action"  of  the  pictures  from  a  technical 
point  of  view,  but  they  are  also  made  in  order  that  the  patrons 
may  not  be  offended.  Some  few  films  are  circulated  throughout 
the  country  in  the  form  in  which  they  have  been  approved  by 
one  of  the  state  boards  of  censorship,  though  no  legal  power  to 
compel  such  procedure  exists.  There  is  no  question  that  the 
entire  industry  knows  what  is  accepted  as  socially  desirable. 
Their  actions  and  resolutions  demonstrate  that  fact.  How  far 
their  pictures  are  in  accord  with  what  they  know  to  be  the 
socially  desirable  standards  is  another  matter. 

Knowing  that  an  appreciable  percentage  of  the  producers  and 
exhibitors  are  willing,  are  anxious  to  give  the  people  what  they 
want;  knowing  that  the  energies  of  the  industry  are  being 
bent  to  the  task  of  finding  out  what  its  patrons  want  to  see,  it 
is  of  little  importance  further  to  study  the  standards  of  its 
leaders.  We  know  that  they  are  governed  by  self-interest,  and  ' 
that  self-interest  tells  them  to  produce  the  thing  that  will  sell 
best.  Heretofore,  the  picture  which  has  sold  the  best,  or  which 
nasbeen  believed  to  be  the  best  seller,  has  been  the  sex  picture 
or  the  melodramatic  thriller  portraying  crime,  violence  and 
sudden  death.  In  view  of  the  rapid  rise  of  the  industry,  the 
conclusions  of  its  leaders  that  such  pictures  were  wanted  seems 
not  entirely  unjustified.  But  is  the  bold  presentation  of  the 


16  MOTION  PICTURES 

sex  motive  still  desired  by  those  who  have  the  right  to  determine 
what  shall  be  shown?  That  can  be  decided  not  by  a  study  of 
what  the  producers  think,  but  by  a  study  of  the  carefully  thought 
out  sets  of  standards  put  forth  by  the  representative  groups  of 
people  who  have  interested  themselves  in  the  problem. 

The  best  organized  of  these  sets  of  crystallized  public  opinion 
are  those  of  the  various  boards  of  censorship,  all  of  which  attempt 
to  keep  in  touch  with  public  opinion.  In  considering  them, 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  they  are  not  absolute,  that  no 
board  rigidly  adheres  to  them.  The  Pennsylvania  Board  of 
Censorship,  which  has  been  considered  as  representative  of  the 
best  in  American  legal  control  of  motion  pictures,  has  formulated 
a  very  definite  series  of  rules  concerning  the  things  that  may 
not  be  shown,  yet  time  and  again  mention  is  made,  even  in  the 
rules  themselves,  that  it  is  the  spirit  and  not  the  letter  thereof 
that  will  be  carried  out  in  the  actual  process  of  censoring. l  One 
rule  states  that  scenes  in  which  the  body  is  unduly  exposed  will 
be  disapproved,  yet  in  recent  showings  of  the  "Queen  of  Sheba", 
for  example,  the  human  form  was  repeatedly  shown  with  an 
unusual  amount  of  exposure,  which  was  apparently  not  con- 
sidered "undue."  The  reason  for  the  apparent  departure  from 
the  regulations  was  that  the  Board  apparently  recognized  that 
the  scenes  were  in  keeping  with  the  historical  setting  and  that 
the  underlying  motives  were  remarkably  free  from  the  suggestive. 
Morals  vary  with  the  passing  of  time;  they  are  not  the  same  in 
all  parts  of  the  world,  even  in  the  various  parts  of  the  United 
States.  The  narrowest  and  most  poorly  equipped  censorship 
official  soon  after  entering  office  realizes  that  his  judgments  must 


1  The  standards  of  the  Pennsylvania  Board  of  Censors  were  derived  from 
those  of  the  English  censors,  and  in  turn,  have  been  adopted  by  practically 
all  American  previewing  officials,  with  only  minor  changes.  The  present 
English  standards  which  are  given  in  Appendix  C,  are  possibly  too  detailed 
to  allow  for  a  wise  use  of  individual  judgment  which  seems  essential  in  cen- 
soring, but  they  are  nevertheless  in  fundamental  agreement  with  the  accepted 
American  standards. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  17 

vary  as  the  time,  setting,  and  themes  of  the  pictures  brought 
before  him  vary. 

All  scenes  or  motives  which  are  prohibited  by  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Board  of  Censors  may  be  classed  under  the  five  headings 
of  violations  of  social  standards  in  regard  to  sex,  person,  property, 
religion  and  the  state. l  Eight  out  of  nineteen  rules  deal  primarily 
with  violations  of  sexual  standards,  six  deal  with  other  offenses 
against  the  person,  and  two  with  offenses  against  property.  None 
deal  exclusively  with  violations  of  religious  standards,  or  with 
offenses  against  the  State.  Profanity  in  subtitles  and  ridicule 
of  religious  sects  are  forbidden  in  minor  provisions  of  rules  which 
have  to  do  mainly  with  other  subjects.  The  State  seems  to  be 
almost  entirely  unprotected,  for  the  only  provisions  made  in 
its  behalf  are  the  one  which  prohibits  stories  or  scenes  which 
hold  up  to  ridicule  or  reproach  races  and  other  social  groups, 
and  might  therefore  incite  riots,  and  that  which  forbids  pictures 
dealing  with  counterfeiting.  The  emphasis  is  almost  entirely 
on  questions  of  sex  and  physical  safety,  with  private  property 
running  a  poor  third  in  the  race  for  protection. 

The  basis  for  these  working  standards  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Board  of  Censors  is  Section  6  of  the  censorship  act  passed 
May   15,    1915.     This  section   provides  that  the   Board   shall 
approve  all  films  which  are  "moral  and  proper;  and  shall  dis- 
approve such  as  are  sacrilegious,  obscene,  indecent,  or  immoral, ; 
or  such  as  tend  in  the  judgtnent  of  the  Board  to  debase  or  corrupt  * 
morals."  * 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  legal  statement  in  the 
above  quotation  of  what  should  not  be  permitted  to  be  shown 
on  the  screen  is  nothing  new  in  the  history  of  American  legisla- 
tion, or  that  of  any  other  civilized  nation.  Certain  acts  which 
have  been  deemed  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  group  have 
always  been  tabu.  This  country  has  always  considered  that 

1  For  purposes  of  comparison  with  the  standards  of  other  organizations, 
the  Pennsylvania  rules  are  quoted  in  full  in  Appendix  D. 

1  Pennsylvania  State  Board  of  Censors,  Rules  and  Standards,  Harrisburg, 
1918,  p.  4. 


18  MOTION  PICT.  URES 

which  is  "sacrilegious,  obscene,  indecent  and  immoral"  or 
anything  which  might  lead  to  such  conduct,  to  be  harmful  to 
group  welfare.  In  every  state,  city  or  county  of  the  United 
States,  irrespective  of  whether  a  censorship  act  is  in  force,  the 
police  officials  have  full  power  to  regulate  conduct  not  in  accor- 
dance with  the  above  provision.  The  only  thing  new  about  the 
act  is  that  it  provides  a  separate  body  of  officials  to  deal  with  a 
specific  problem  of  conduct,  instead  of  leaving  the  entire  field 
to  the  already  existing  authorities. 

The  important  point  for  the  present  discussion,  however,  is 
not  that  a  new  official  body  has  been  created,  but  that  there  is 
general  agreement,  crystallized  in  the  laws  of  our  nation,  on 
what  should  and  what  should  not  be  permitted  to  be  presented 
to  the  public.  There  is  no  place  in  the  Union  where  any  picture 
which  is  grossly  immoral  or  sacrilegious  cannot  be  immediately 


suppressed  under  existing  legislation.  But  existing  legislation 
does  not  define  in  most  cases  just  what  is  immoral  or  sacrilegious, 
and  that  is  one  of  the  things  that  the  law  cannot  do  for  the 
reason  that  there  is  no  rigid  and  even  temporarily  unchanging 
classification  of  such  acts  possible.  Admitting  this  point, 
realizing  that  morals  are  the  expression  of  group  opinion,  we  must 
consequently  form  judgment  concerning  the  existing  type  of 
motion  picture  on  the  basis  of  what  are  the  generally  accepted 
social  standards  of  today. 

The  opinion  of  the  Pennsylvania  Board  of  Censorship  in  its 
bare  outlines  is  that  anything  which  tends  to  break  down  the 
family  in  its  present  form  is  included  in  its  legal  instructions  as 
to  what  not  to  permit.  The  portraying  of  suggestive  nudeness, 
prostitution,  assaults  upon  women  with  immoral  intent,  and 
other  sex  irregularities  is  believed  to  have  such  a  tendency. 
Similarly,  scenes  which  show  gruesome  situations,  murders, 
stabbing,  chloroforming,  the  inflicting  of  other  personal  injuries 
are  disapproved,  especially  if  prolonged  beyond  the  limits  neces- 
sary to  the  continuity  of  the  play.  The  illegal  destruction  of 
property  by  burning  or  wrecking,  and  wrongful  appropriation  of 
property  must  also  be  shown  only  when  necessary  to  the  action 
of  the  picture.  The  Board  seriously  doubts  whether  it  is  ever 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  19 

necessary  to  show  the  "modus  operandi  of  "criminals" 
in  such  detail  as  to  be  easily  imitated.  Sacrilege  and  the 
ridicule  of  funerals,  morgues,  houses  of  ill  fame,  hospitals,  and 
the  like,  for  purposes  of  slapstick  comedy  is  also  interpreted  as 
tending  to  debase  public  morals.  These  minute  yet  flexible 
regulations  are  an  attempt  by  an  official  body  to  interpret  the 
will  of  the  legislators  who  framed  the  bill  and  the  people  who 
have  chosen  them  for  office.  Are  they  correct  interpretations? 
A  series  of  studies  which  will  be  discussed  in  a  later  chapter 
was  made,  beginning  in  1916  under  the  direction  of  the  Civics 
Department  of  the  General  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs. 
The  women  who  interested  themselves  in  these  surveys  must  be 
considered  as  having  social  standards  which  are  largely  in  accord 
with  those  of  the  general  public,  since  the  membership  in  the 
clubs  is  representative  of  the  middle  and  upper  strata  of  our 
population.  At  that  time  there  were  approximately  two  million 
members  in  the  Federation,  and  the  ideals  of  these  two  million 
women  are  largely  representative  of  those  of  their  families  and 
closer  friends.  The  classifications  of  pictures  into  good,  bad 
and  not  worth  while  were  made  with  practically  the  same  bases 
for  judgment  as  those  used  by  the  Pennsylvania  Board  of  Censors, 
the  main  variation  being  as  will  be  noticed  later,  the  fact  that 
the  Women's  Clubs  did  not  express  their  ideas  in  as  specific 
terminology  as  did  the  Board  of  Censors.  The  fundamental 
principles  were  remarkably  similar. 

The  Women's  Co-operative  Alliance  of  Minneapolis,  Minne- 
sota, in  an  investigation  of  the  Minneapolis  motion  picture 
houses  in  September,  1920,  made  use  of  the  Women's  Clubs'  plan 
of  procedure,  but  in  adapting  it  to  their  own  needs  and  in  making 
the  points  for  investigation  more  specific,  they  practically 
duplicated  the  standards  in  use  by  the  Pennsylvania  Board. 
Again,  the  only  difference  between  the  two  was  the  fact  that 
one  was  more  detailed  than  the  other. 

We  may  take  the  results  of  almost  any  of  the  numer- 
ous investigations,  including  those  by  the  National  Board  of 
Review  which  claims  carefully  to  have  sounded  public  opinion 


20  MOTION  PICTURES 

in  the  formation  of  its  standards,  which  have  been  made  of 
motion  pictures,  and  invariably  find  that  the  acts  and  themes 
considered  undesirable  are,  with  rare  and  minor  exceptions, 
fundamentally  the  same. l  The  various  boards  of  censorship 
eliminate  and  approve  the  same  scenes  and  pictures,  though 
occasionally  some  producer  points  with  glee  to  a  glaring  incon- 
sistency between  the  judgments  of  two  boards,  which,  after  all, 
is  only  to  be  expected  when  the  various  elements  of  the  situation 
are  taken  into  consideration.  Women's  Clubs,  censorship 
officials,  newspapers  and  other  publications,  ministerial  associa- 
tions, and  the  industry  itself  are  united  in  principle.  Any.  trade 
journal  editor,  any  producer,  any  exhibitor  will  indignantly 
deny  that  he  has  any  desire  to"  advocate,  produce  or  show  any- 
thing which  will  tend  to  corrupt  the  morals  of  the  people,  though 
occasionally  one  will  admit  that  it  sometimes  has  to  be  done 
in  order  to  compete  with  others  whose  ideals  are  not  so  high 
as  his  own  and  keep  his  own  box  office  receipts  on  a  paying  basis, 
in  spite  of  his  higher  personal  standards  of  belief. 

Since  a  common  basis  of  principle  has  been  established  through 
a  demonstration  of  the  general  acceptance  of  fundamentally 
similar  ideals,  it  is  now  possible  to  discuss  investigations  of  the 
content  of  motion  pictures  in  an  effort  to  determine  its  agreement 
with  or  variation  from  the  established  base. 

1  Much  material  issued  by  the  National  Board  of  Review,  70  Fifth  Avenue, 
New  York  City,  has  been  considered  in  the  study  of  its  standards.  Since 
this  has  been  in  the  form  of  pamphlets  and  scattered  mimeographed  sheets, 
it  seems  inadvisable  to  give  specific  references.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  its 
standards  are  for  practical  purposes  the  same  as  those  already  quoted,  namely, 
those  of  the  National  Association  of  the  Motion  Picture  Industry,  and  these 
of  the  Pennsylvania  State  Board  of  Censors.  The  original  material  may  be 
obtained  from  the  Board  upon  request. 


I 

A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  21 

III 

CONFORMITY   OF   MOTION    PICTURES   TO   THE   ACCEPTED 
SOCIAL  STANDARDS 

DURING  the  one  year  period  from  the  first  of  November,  1917, 
until  the  first  of  December,  1918,  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  in 
which  city  practically  the  same  pictures  are  exhibited  as  in  any 
other  city  in  the  United  States,  the  acting  censor  deleted 
55,604  feet  of  film  from  that  submitted  to  him  for  approval,  or  a 
total  of  974  subjects.  The  brief  official  statement  of  the  reasons 
for  the  deletions  is  given  in  the  following  table,  as  is  the  relative 
frequency  of  their  occurrence :  * 


NUMBER  OF 

CAUSES  OF 

SUBJECTS 

ELIMINATION 

FT.   DELETED 

PER  CENT. 

467 

Unlawful 

31,040 

47.9 

220 

Immoral 

14,135 

22.5 

183 

Indecent  (Comedy) 

6,539 

18.77 

42 

Indecent  (Drama) 

1,978 

4.2 

36 

Nude 

1,093 

3.0 

17 

Obscene 

400 

1.7 

6 

Race 

254 

0.6 

3 

Creed' 

165 

0.3 

While  the  assigned  causes  of  the  eliminations  are  extremely 
vague,  it  is  possible  to  see  in  them  the  previously  mentioned 
sexual,  property,  personal,  religious  and  state  offenses.  Com- 
bining the  immoral,  indecent  (both  in  comedies  and  in  dramas), 
nude  and  obscene,  we  find  that  over  50.0  per  cent,  of  the  offenses 
were  against  sexual  standards.  Offenses  against  race  and  creed 
are  in  a  very  small  minority,  as  is  to  be  expected  from  our  pre- 
vious analysis  of  standards.  The  term  "unlawful"  is  the  most 
vague  of  all,  but  although  it  has  been  impossible  to  obtain  any 

1  Chicago  Motion  Picture  Commission,  Report,  September  1920,  p.  183. 


22  MOTION  PICTURES 

exact  statement  of  what  is  meant,  it  is  not  difficult  to  reach  the 
conclusion  that  it  refers  to  scenes  which  would  be  likely  to  incite 
to  unlawful  acts  through  the  portrayal  of  crimes  and  brutality. 
This  heading  includes  a  majority  of  the  deleted  subjects  which 
were  not  included  under  the  general  heading  of  sexual  offenses. 
At  that,  it  is  a  very  close  second,  lacking  only  3  per  cent,  of 
being  equal  to  the  latter  type  of  offenses. 

A  committee  .of  four  hundred  women  from  the  Chicago  Political 
Equality  League  presented  the  results  of  what  is  probably  the 
most  extensive,  representative  survey  of  motion  pictures  ever 
completed  in  the  United  States  to  the  New  York  Biennial  Con- 
vention of  the  General  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs.  One  /  *1  j 
thousand,  seven  hundred  and  sixty-five  plays  were  surveyed. 
About  21  per  cent,  of  these  were  classed  as  bad,  nearly  30  per 
cent.,  for  example,  showing  criminal  scenes.  Only  20  per  cent, 
were  classed  as  being  likely  to  have  a  positively  beneficial  effect 
on  the  audiences.  The  majority,  or  80  per  cent.,  were  either 
of  a  harmful  nature  or  "not  worth  while."1 

Surveys  similar  to  that  made  by  the  Chicago  Political  Equality 
League  were  made  by  Members  of  the  Women's  Federation  in 
Michigan,  Arkansas,  South  Dakota,  West  Virginia,  New  York 

NO.         PER  CENT. 

1  Number  of  plays  under  observation 1765  100 

Classed  as  good 348  20 

Classed  as  bad 367  21 

"Not  worth  while" 1040  59 

Plays  showing  domestic  infelicity 282  16 

'         clandestine  appointments 229  13 

"        drinking  or  bar  room  scenes 485  27 

"        scenes  suggesting  criminal  acts 588  33 

"        gambling  scenes 210  12 

"            "       lewd  actions 193  11 

"       objectionable   close-up  filming 158  9 

"        risque  or  immoral  scenes 229  13 

Tending  to  create  contempt  for  law,  etc 123  7 

"      "    contribute  to  delinquency 353  20 

General  Federation  Magazine,  January,  1919,  p.  13. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  23 

and  Rhode  Island. l  These  were  made  on  plans  based  on  the 
methods  used  by  the  Illinois  organization.  Mrs.  Bessie  Leach 
Priddy,  Chairman  of  the  Federation's  Department  of  Civics 
in  1919  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  these  latter  investiga- 
tions "practically  corroborated"  the  previous  findings.2  It  is 
therefore  unnecessary  to  quote  from  material  which,  gathered 
under  very  nearly  the  same  conditions  as  the  Illinois  material, 
leads  to  identical  conclusions. 

A  survey  ui  sixty- two  motion  picture  houses  in  Minneapolis  in 
September,  1920,  by  the  Women's  Co -Operative  Alliance  while 
not  so  extensive  as  that  by  the  Women's  Federation,  is  probably 
more  accurate  and  reliable  in  that  it  was  completed  by  two 
workers  who  were  acquainted  with  the  methods  of  previous 
surveys,  such  as  that  by  the  Chicago  Political  Equality  League, 
and  who  had  used  all  possible  precautions  to  standardize  their 
judgments. 3  The  features  which  they  decided  upon  as  ob- 
jectionable were  elaborations  of  the  features  which  the  Federa- 
tion considered  objectionable.  A  comparative  study  of  their 
judgments  later  showed  that  they  had  been  reasonably  successful 
in  reducing  the  personal  element  to  a  minimum.  Since,  however, 
their  investigation  was  of  an  intensive  rather  than  an  extensive 
nature,  its  results  cannot  be  considered  representative  or  of  any 
great  value  in  a  general  discussion  of  motion  pictures  unless 
discussed  from  the  point  of  view  of  their  agreement  with  other 
material  of  a  more  general  nature.  In  other  words,  so  limited  a 
sample  may  fairly  be  used  only  in  conjunction  with  other  sam- 
ples. 

Although  made  about  five  years  after  the  Illinois  survey,  a 
noteworthy  correlation  is  readily  observable  between  the  results 
obtained  by  the  two  investigations.     The  Illinois  study  founcK 
that  27  per  cent,  of  the  plays  showed  drinking  or  bar  roomy 

1  General  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  Report  of  Fourteenth  Biennial    \ 
Covention,  p.  411,  p.  450. 

1  General  Federation  Magazine,  January,  1919,  p.  13. 
8  Women's    Co-Operative    Alliance,  Inc.     The    Better    Movie    Movement, 
Publication  No.  38,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  Feb.  1921. 


24  MOTION  PICTURES 

scenes;  the  Minneapolis  study  found  that  in  19  per  cent,  of  the 
plays  which  came  under  their  observation  there  were  objectionable 
drinking  or  bar  room  scenes.  The  former  found  that  9  per  cent, 
contained  objectionable  close-up  scenes;  the  latter  found  12  per 
cent,  contained  objectionable  close-up  filming.  The  former 
found  that  11  per  cent,  showed  lewd  actions;  the  latter  found  12 
per  cent,  to  be  the  corresponding  figure  for  this  item. J  Other 
items  are  possibly  not  entirely  comparable  due  to  the  different 
working  bases  of  the  investigators.  It  is  sufficiently  evident, 
however,  even  to  the  casual  observer  that  there  is  no  signifi- 
cant inconsistency  between  the  two  reports. 

The  above  quoted  examples  of  investigations  of  motion 
pictures  confirm  not  only  each  other  in  their  conclusions,  but 
also  bear  out  numerous  less  pretentious  investigations  and  a 
large  amount  of  the  individual  criticism  which  has  been  directed 
/  at  the  industry  for  the  admitted  purpose  of  many  of  its  mem- 
bers of  giving  the  people  the  things  they  believe  they  want, 
irrespective  of  the  social  effects  of  such  a  course  of  action. 

PERCENT.  PERCENT. 
1  DID  THE  PLAYS  SHOW  YES  NO 

Habit-forming  drug  using  made  attractive 4  96 

Objectionable  bed-room  scenes 4  96 

Criminal  methods  in  a  way  to  give  instructive  ideas. . .  6  94 

Prolonged  objectionable  love  scenes 6  94 

Gambling  made  alluring  or  attractive 8  92 

Race  friction 9  91 

Any  objectionable  close-up  filming 12  88 

Any  risque  or  lewd  actions 12  88 

Religion  or  law  ridiculed  or  held  in  contempt 12  88 

Any  irreverence  depicted 14  86 

Suggestive  or  objectionable  exposure  of  person 16  84 

Gruesome  subjects  or  death  scenes,  objectionable 16  84 

Objectionable  drinking  or  bar  room  scenes 19  -  84 

Infidelity  or  disregard  of  marriage  vows 20  80 

Underworld  scenes  or  objectionable  dancing 24  76 

Any  obscenity,  immorality  or  vulgarity 36  65 

Any  sex  problem  handled  in  an  objectionable  manner. .  .  8  92 

Women's  Co-Operative  Alliance,  Inc.,  Better  Movie  Movement,  Publication 
No.  38,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  February,  1921. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  25 

The  B£y£iend  Doctor  Clifford  G.  Twombley,  of  Lancaster, 
Pa.,  is  without  doubt  one  of  the  leading  churchmen  who  have 
done  anything  of  value  on  the  subject  of  motion  pictures.  It  is 
his  estimate  that  between  80  per  cent,  and  90  per  cent,  of  all  the 
children  in  this  country  under  twelve  years  of  age  are  reached  by 
motion  pictures.  It  was  under  his  direction  that  the  Ministerial 
Association  of  Lancaster,  Pennsylvania,  investigated  conditions 
in  that  city  from  January  8  to  February  9,  1917.  A  group  of 
twenty-two  ministers  of  various  denominations  viewed  134 
different  films  which  were  shown  in  Lancaster  during  this  period. 
Many  of  these  pictures  were  seen  by  from  two  to  six  different 
investigators,  and  in  cases  where  judgments  varied,  the  picture 
was  always  given  the  benefit  of  the  doubt.  Of  the  134  films 
examined,  65  were  found  to  be  "good,"  31  to  be  "bad,"  and  38 
to  be  "indifferent."1  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Ministerial  > 
Association  acted  favorably  on  a  larger  percentage  than  did 
the  women's  associations  previously  mentioned.  In  so  far  as 
violations  of  accepted  social  standards  were  found,  there  seems 
to  be  a  correlation,  though  not  to  any  remarkable  extent,  with 
the  previous  reports. 

1  Of  the  134  films  examined: 
65  were  found  to  be  good. 
31  were  found  to  be  bad. 
38  were  found  to  be  indifferent. 
30  pictures  showed  marital  infidelity,  bigamy,  illicit  love,  immorality  or 

lust,  in  unnecessary  or  objectionable  ways. 
26  pictures  had  one  or  more  murders  or  suicides. 
19  pictures  snowed  intemperate  drinking  or  drunkenness  in  them. 
14  pictures  showed  robbery  or  theft,  and  more  or  less  of  their  methods. 
12  pictures  showed  gun  play. 

10  pictures  showed  gambling,  both  among  the  rich  and  the  poor. 
7  pictures  showed  the  low  resorts  and  habitues  of  the  underworld. 
7  pictures  showed  poisoning,  chloroforming,  the  giving  of  knockout  drops 

or  the  taking  of  drugs. 

5  pictures  showed  kidnapping  or  blackmailing. 

Ministerial  Association  of  Lancaster,  Pa.,  Report  of  the  Moving  Picture 
Shows  Investigation,  Lancaster,  Pa.,  1917. 


26  MOTION  PICTURES 

As  a  result  of  Doctor  Twombley's  activities  in  fighting  what 
he  termed  the  "motion  picture  evil",  he  was  invited  in  1920  to 
Baltimore  to  study  the  films  then  being  shown,  to  prove  or  dis- 
prove the  statements  of  a  motion  picture  exhibitor  who  said 
that  if  conditions  could  be  shown  to  be  as  evil  at  a  number  of 
Baltimore  theatres,  as  certain  reformers  claimed,  he  would 
forfeit  a  sum  of  money  to  any  designated  charity  and  devote  his 
efforts  to  remedying  the  evil.  The  results  of  the  consequent 
hurried  investigation  in  Baltimore  were  published  in  the  form  of 
brief  synopses  of  the  stories  of  thirteen  films  viewed  by  Doctor 
Twombley.  He  admitted  at  the  outset  that  50  or  60  per  cent, 
of  the  shows  were  good  or  harmless,  and  visited  only  those  with 
suggestive  titles.  At  that  he  did  not  have  time  to  visit  seven 
pictures  with  titles  such  as  "Sinners",  "Shame",  "Camille 
of  the  Yukon",  "Should  a  Husband  Forgive",  "The  Woman 
Gives",  "In  Search  of  a  Sinner",  and  "Midnight  Gambols." 
That  the  titles  are  not  entirely  misleading  is  evidenced  by  the 
fact  that  of  the  above  pictures,  the  second  was  condemned 
in  toto  by  the  Pennsylvania  Board,  while  the  others  had  49,  15, 
24,  15,  37  and  8  eliminations  made  respectively  before  they 
could  be  shown  in  that  state. 

Since  the  method  of  judging  a  picture  by  a  synopsis  of  the 
story  is  somewhat  different  from  the  methods  previously  dis- 
cussed, it  may  be  of  value  to  quote  from  Doctor  Twombley  in 
regard  to  one  or  two  of  the  plays  he  viewed.  The  story  of  one 
reads  as  follows :  "A  man  marries  a  prudish  wife  who  repulses  his 
amorous  advances  and  caresses.  He  then  meets  a  former  girl 
acquaintance  who  tries  to  win  him  away  by  a  purely  physical 

appeal After  the  girl  has  succeeded,  the  wife  divorces 

the  man,  who  marries  the  girl.  Then  the  first  wife,  who  over- 
hears a  conversation  of  two  women  about  her,  determines  to  win 
back  the  man  again  by  the  same  purely  physical,  sensuous  appeal, 
and  as  she  succeeds,  the  second  wife  loses  him.  An  effeminate 
violinist  then  makes  love  to  the  second  wife  in  a  sensual  way 
and  wins  her.  Twelve  eliminations  were  made  in  this  film  by 
the  Maryland  board  and  twenty-two  were  made  by  the  Penn- 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  27 

sylvania  board.  It  was  distributed  in  its  uncensored  form 
throughout  44  States  of  the  Union."  l 

Or  again:  "A  girl  is  kidnapped  from  the  house  of  a  rich 
American  in  Egypt  by  an  Egyptian  'nobleman'  whom  she  has 
refused  to  marry,  and  carried  to  a  '  house  of  infamy. '  A  young 
dragoman,  the  butler  in  the  house,  discovers  the  kidnapping 
and  goes  after  the  girl  to  the  '  house  of  infamy, '  where  he  dances 
in  a  sensuous  scene  with  a  prostitute  in  his  arms,  whom  he  finally 
locks  in  a  chest.  So  he  is  able  to  rescue  the  girl  just  as  she,  half 
clad,  is  being  forcibly  caressed  in  a  most  sensual  manner  on  a 
bed  in  another  room  in  the  house  of  the  Egyptian.  Later  on  he 
kills  the  Egyptian  in  revenge  and  the  rich  American  marries  the 
girl. 

"  (NOTE — The  Maryland  Board  of  Censors  saved  this  picture 
from  being  even  far  worse  by  four  most  necessary  eliminations. 
But  the  film  goes  practically  uncensored  in  its  worst  form 
throughout  the  country,  except  in  Maryland,  Pennsylvania, 
Ohio  and  Kansas.)"  Florida,  New  York  and  Virginia  have 
since  been  added  to  the  list  of  States  which  have  censorship. 

These  synopses  were  picked  at  random  from  the  thirteen 
reported  in  the  Baltimore  Sun.  They  are  neither  better  nor 
worse  than  the  others.  While  they  must  not  be  considered  as 
typical  of  the  majority  of  films  released  for  public  showing,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  they  are  representative  of  a  relatively 
large  number  of  plays  shown  in  the  districts  which  have  censor- 

1  Apparently  the  motion  picture  interests  do  not  consider  such  pictures 
undesirable  for  to  the  best  of  Doctor  Twombley's  knowledge  the  forfeit  was 
never  paid.  The  wording  of  the  challenge  which  appeared  in  an  advertisemens 
in  the  Baltimore  News  was  in  part  as  follows: 

"If  you  can  point  to  a  single  motion-picture  house  in  Baltimore  which 
shows  the  class  of  plays  that  you  describe,  I  shall  consider  it  my  profound 
duty  to  co-operate  with  you  in  a  vigorous  effort  to  prevent  further  exhibition 

of  such  films If  it  be  proved  that  any  picture  we  show  or  have  shown" 

(in  certain  specified  theatres)  "might  have  a  tendency  to  corrupt  the  Public 
Morals,  I  will  give  $1,000  to  any  charitable  institution  you  may  designate." 
Quoted  by  Howard  A.  Kelly,  in  "The  Movie  Evil,"  in  the  Supplement  to  The 
Christian  Citizen,  Towson,  Md.,  Vol.  IV,  No.  11,  November,  1920. 


28  MOTION  PICTURES 

ship,  and  representative  of  a  larger  number  shown  where  no 
legalized  censorship  exists. 

An  analogy  which  is  frequently  made  is  one  comparing  a  movie 
with  a  book  or  work  of  art,  and  arguing  therefrom  that  that 
which  is  permissible  in  print  and  art  is  also  permissible  on  the 
screen.  This  contention  has  been  well  answered  by  Dr.  Ellis  P. 
Oberholtzer  in  the  following  quotation.  "I  have  often  been 
told,  when  I  have  protested  against  a  particular  scene  in  a  film, 
that  this  is  but  a  transcript  of  what  is  described  in  a  newspaper  or 
a  magazine.  Conditions  are  very  different;  analogy  is  false. 
A  printed  line  may  tell  of  the  birth  of  a  child;  a  photographic 
depiction  of  the  process  of  childbirth  is  another  matter.  An 
assault  upon  a  woman  may  be  alluded  to  in  print;  it  may,  indeed, 
be  the  climax  of  a  story.  But  to  photograph  the  last  details 
of  such  an  attack  and  reproduce  each  movement  in  the  graphic 
method  of  the  movie  is  to  offend  good  taste,  and  often  good 
morals."  1  In  accordance  with  this  line  of  thought  it  is  not  valid 
to  contend  that  since  stories  much  more  frank  in  their  basis  of 
sex  motive  are  generally  conceded  as  good  literature  and  a 
desirable  form  of  human  achievement,  therefore  motion  pictures 
of  a  similar  nature  are  to  be  fostered  rather  than  repressed. 

The  National  Board  of  Review  has  always  maintained  that 
its  policy  was  to  base  its  standards  for  reviewing  on  public 
opinion,  and  that  it  constantly  kept  in  touch  with  public  opinion 
through  correspondence  and  other  means  of  investigation.  One 
of  the  means  of  investigation  recently  employed  was  a  question- 
naire which  was  sent  to  eight  hundred  leading  theatre  owners 
in  different  parts  of  the  country.  A  mimeographed  report 
issued  by  the  National  Board  in  March,  1921,  stated  that  64 
replies  from  owners  or  managers  of  104  theatres  had  been  re- 
ceived and  analyzed. 2  An  attempt  several  months  later  to  dis- 
;  cover  whether  any  more  replies  had  been  received  resulted  in  the 
j  information  that  only  two  or  three  additional  replies  had  come 

1  Oberholtzer,  Dr.  E.  P.,  What  are  the  Movies  Making  of  Our  Children? 
World's  Work,  Vol.  XLI,  No.  3,  January,  1921. 

3  Mimeographed  material  in  the  hands  of  the  author. 


: 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  29 

in  since  the  issuance  of  the  original  report.  In  explanation  of 
this  small  percentage  of  replies  it  was  stated  in  a  letter  from  the 
National  Board  that  "it  is  our  experience  with  exhibitors  that 
only  a  rather  small  proportion  can  be  counted  upon  to  reply  to 
questionnaires."  If  this  were  the  only  instance  of  reticence  on 
the  part  of  the  industry  in  furnishing  information  it  would  not 
be  remarkable,  but  there  is  no  question  that  for  some  reason  or 
other  a  policy  of  silence  has  been  generally  adopted. 

For  example,  a  test  questionnaire  was  sent  out  by  the  author 
during  the  fall  of  1921  to  about  150  exhibitors  in  a  mid-western 
city.  Every  known  house  was  sent  a  copy,  and  there  seems  to 
be  no  doubt  but  that  they  reached  their  destination  for  only  one 
was  returned  by  the  Post  Office  on  account  of  wrong  address. 
Five  replies  were  received,  and  two  of  these  did  not  contain  the 
requested  information.  The  questionnaire,  however,  had  been 
carefully  prepared  so  that  no  information  was  requested  which 
was  not  obtainable  in  similar  form  through  any  of  the  trade 
journals,  or  which  could  in  any  way  be  considered  a  trade  secret. 
A  short  time  later  a  state  division  of  the  Motion  Picture  Theatre 
Owners  of  America  wrote  and  requested  that  the  author,  to 
quote  verbatim,  "kindly  give  more  information  as  to  just  who, 
what  and  why"  the  information  was  desired.  It  developed 
later  that  managers  of  the  important  theatres  have  orders 
not  to  fill  out  any  questionnaires,  but  to  send  them  to- 
headquarters,  as  a  matter  of  policy.  Had  fair  answers  beea 
received  to  the  first  circulars,  others  with  requests  for  more 
important  information  would  have  been  sent  out.  As  it  was, 
such  methods  of  investigation  were  shown  to  be  fruitless,  for 
even  though  subsequent  replies  might  have  been  received  in 
significant  numbers  it  would  have  been  dangerous  to  place  much  .•/"' 
trust  in  them  clue  to  the  suspicious  turn  of  mind  of  the  owners 
and  managers. 

To  return  to  the  questionnaire  sent  out  by  the  National  Board, 
if  the  limited  number  of  replies  is  kept  in  mind  in  order  to  prevent 
the  over-estimation  of  its  value,  the  results  may  be  used  to 
corroborate  the  findings  of  other  investigations.  It  must  also 
be  kept  in  mind  that  since  it  was  issued  by  the  National  Board 


30  MOTION  PICTURES 

of  Review  on  information  volunteered  by  the  motion  picture 
industry  itself,  the  chances  are  in  favor  of  any  existing  bias  being 
to  the  credit  of  the  industry. 

Only  fifteen  of  the  sixty-three  owners  and  managers  replied 
that  they  had  received  any  complaints  from  their  patrons  con- 
cerning the  moral  tone  of  the  pictures  they  exhibited.  Fifty-five 
objections  were  raised  by  thirty-seven  individuals  to  whom 
questionnaires  were  sent,  exclusive  of  those  objections  which 
related  to  sex-suggestive  titles,  to  serials  and  to  bathing-girl 
comedies.  Twenty-three  of  the  fifty-five  objections  were 
against  the  so-called  sex  pictures.  The  others  were  against 
"pictures  with  excessive  brutality  and  killing,"  the  showing  of 
the  underworld  and  crime,  "nudity,  vulgarity  or  salaciousness, " 
the  vampire  and  "over-done  love  scenes,"  and  a  total  of  seven 
objections  against  propaganda,  costume,  highbrow  society, 
sacrilegiousness,  dope,  illegitimacy  and  "cheap"  pictures.  In 
answer  to  a  later  question  specific  pictures  against  which  objec- 
tions existed  in  the  patronage  of  the  theatres  in  question  were 
mentioned.  As  was  to  be  expected,  no  one  picture  was  given 
any  preponderance  of  votes,  since  there  were  only  sixty-five 
mentioned  at  all.  "Idols  of  Clay"  was  mentioned  nine  times, 
"Midnight  Madness"  six  times,  "Sex",  "Prisoners  of  Love" 
and  "Outside  the  Law"  were  mentioned  four  times.  Two  were 
mentioned  three  times,  seven  two  times  and  forty-eight  one 
time.  It  might  be  imagined  that  since  such  a  wide  range  of 
choice  existed  that  the  objections  were  vague  or  ill-founded. 
This  does  not  necessarily  follow,  for  the  total  number  of  pictures 
mentioned  was  only  a  small  part  of  the  total  shown  during  the 
six  months  covered  by  the  investigation,  and  other  investigations 
have  tended  to  show  that  pictures  containing  objectionable 
features  are  not  few. 

The  question  of  objectionable  titles  to  pictures  which  are 

possibly  otherwise  unobjectionable  was  also  raised,  though  the 

practice  of  attaching  "box  office  titles"  to  the  picturizations  of 

I  innocent  stories  is  too  well  known  to  require  much  comment. 

Changing  the  title  of  Sir  J.  M.  Barrie's  "The  Admirable  Crich- 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  31 

ton"  to  "Male  and  Female"  is  one  of  many  examples  of  this 
practice.  There  has  been  extreme  frankness  in  the  reasons 
assigned  by  the  industry  for  the  changes  as  is  evidenced  by 
several  editorial  discussions  in  trade  journals  concerning  the 
relative  drawing  power  of  the  titles  of  well-known  books  in 
comparison  with  the  more  startling  titles  tacked  onto  their 
picturization  by  the  producers.  Forty-three  exhibitors  told  the 
National  Board  that  they  believed  objectionable  titles  were  being 
given  pictures,  while  thirteen  replied  that  this  was  not  true. 
Forty -nine  different  pictures  were  named  as  examples  by  thirty 
exhibitors.  "Passion"  received  thirteen  votes;  "Forbidden 
Fruit",  eleven;  "Passion  Fruit",  nine;  "Sex",  eight;  "The 
Forbidden  Thing",  seven;  "The  Devil's  Pass  Key",  "The 
Killer"  and  "The  Passionate  Pilgrim"  three  each.  Ten  were 
mentioned  two  times  and  thirty-one  were  mentioned  only  once. 
In  answer  to  the  question,  "Is  the  sex  element  too  large?" 
thirty- two  answered  "yes"  and  twenty- three  answered  "no". 
The  answers,  "Not  too  much  for  our  patrons  but  perhaps  too 
much  for  the  so-called  reformers"  and  "No,  neither  motion 
pictures,  literature  nor  life  can  be  separated  from  the  ideas  of 
'sex'"  show  why  much  of  the  undesirable  element  remains  in 
the  films  of  today,  and  will  remain  until  removed  by  some  power 
superior  to  the  individuals'  desires  for  gain.  Thirty  pictures 
were  characterized  as  "sex  pictures",  including  "Sex",  mentioned 
thirteen  times,  "Midsummer  Madness",  mentioned  nine  times, 
"Passion",  mentioned  four  times,  and  "Idols  of  Clay"  and 
"Prisoners  of  Love",  mentioned  three  and  two  times  respec- 
tively. Six  were  mentioned  two  times  and  twenty,  one  time. 
Twenty-two  of  the  exhibitors  claimed  that  their  audiences  were 
larger  when  "sex  pictures"  were  being  shown,  ten  claimed  that 
they  were  below  normal  at  such  times,  and  nineteen  thought  it 
made  little  or  no  difference.  Thirty-five  thought  the  National 
Board  of  Review  should  be  more  stringent  in  regard  to  their 
rulings  on  "sex  pictures"  and  nineteen  thought  they  were 
sufficiently  severe  in  their  rulings.  In  the  entire  summarizing 
report  of  the  National  Board  of  Review  there  is  no  evidence  to 


32  MOTION  PICTURES 

show  that  motion  pictures  are  considered  by  the  industry  itself 
to  be  in  accord  with  the  accepted  social  standards. 

It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  noting  that  the  investigations  which 
have  been  considered  are  not  representative  of  those  against 
which  much  well  directed  criticism  has  been  aimed  on  account 
of  the  apparently  haphazard  method  of  procedure  and  the  use  of 
questionable  standards  of  conduct  as  the  bases  on  which  the 
judgments  were  built.  An  example  of  this  type,  which  may  be 
entirely  accurate  but  is  nevertheless  inconclusive  and  likely 
to  raise  suspicions  of  bias,  is  one  which  was  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Committee  on  Education  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives at  its  hearings  on  House  Bill  456  for  the  creation  of  a  federal 
motion  picture  commission,  in  1916,  by  Doctor  W.  F.  Crafts, 
superintendent  of  the  International  Reform  Bureau.  According 
to  Doctor  Crafts  a  state  superintendent  of  schools  of  West 
Virginia  studied  the  "real  character  of  current  motion  pictures, " 
and  found  that  25  per  cent,  of  the  pictures  were  "good"  and 
/""not  bad",  and  that  75  per  cent,  were  "bad"  and  "very  bad." 
Cigarettes  were  shown  in  35  per  cent.,  drink  in  50  per  cent.,  and 
gun  play  and  murder  in  50  per  cent.  "Deceit,  intrigue,  jealousy, 
or  treachery  was  a  leading  feature  in  at  least  40  per  cent,  of  the 
programs  presented."  1 

In  accordance  with  the  results  of  the  surveys  which 
we  have  reviewed,  we  may  say  without  exaggeration  that 
approximately  20  per  cent,  of  the  films  shown  in  this 
country  tend  at  least  in  part  to  have  a  harmulf  effect  if 
moving  picture  audiences  are  in  any  way  influenced  by 
that  which  is  continually  put  before  them.  The  fact  that 
possibly  50  per  cent,  of  the  motion  picture  films  are  likely  to 
have  some  beneficial  effect  does  not  prove  that  the  harmful 
plays  should  be  disregarded.  Violations  of  standards  of  conduct 
which  must  in  the  nature  of  things  result  in  similar  conduct  are 
frequent  under  existing  conditions;  more  frequent  than  is 

1  House  of  Representatives,  Hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Education, 
January  13,  1916,  p.  9. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  33 

necessary,  as  has  been  shown  by  the  fact  that  boards  of  censorship 
have  eliminated  many  in  the  districts  where  legal  provision  is 
made  for  such  work.  Consujejable^weight  must  be  given  to 


the  peculiar  circumstance  that  the  motion  picture 

one  of  the   largest,  manufacturing  ihcriistries~m~the"  counting, 


"has  not  fought  facts  with  facts?  No  ao^tfate^reiiu^ation  oitne 
rpsnlts  ^  yLJtha^yariori3i,  inW^tig^:  "  has  ev(-'r  t>een  offered. 
t'ntil  present  conditions  are  altered  it  cannot  be  offered.  The 


industry  cannot  afford  to  become  entangled  in  an  argument  in 
which  its  members  would  be  compelled  to  argue  against  their 
personal  beliefs  and  the  facts  in  order  to  show  that  their  choice 
of  plays,  the  result  of  a  box  office  policy,  is  not  in  a  large  per- 
centage of  cases  contrary  to  the  accepted  social  standards. 


6 /- 
V 


34  MOTION  PICTURES 

IV 

EFFECT  OF  MOTION  PICTURES  ON  THE  AMERICAN  PEOPLE 

IT  should  be  sufficient  in  order  to  indicate  the  harmful  effects 
of  motion  pictures  to  point  out  the  number  of  people  who  attend 
and  the  kind  of  picture  they  see,  as  has  just  been  done,  but  in 
order  to  emphasize  the  practical  consequences  of  motion  pictures 
some  evidence  should  be  cited  to  demonstrate  that  the  effective- 
ness of  the  discussion  does  not  depend  solely  on  a  belief  in 
determinism.  All  of  the  observations  cited  below  are  of  children, 
for  the  scientific,  observational  and  experimental  attitude  towards 
the  problems  of  motion  pictures  has  not  been  utilized  in  dealing 
with  adults,  and  we  must  therefore  establish  our  point  in  so  far 
as  they  are  concerned,  using  the  deterministic  doctrine  as  the 
foundation.  With  regard  to  children,  however,  there  is  an 
abundance  of  evidence  on  which  to  base  estimates  of  the  desira- 
bility or  undesirability  of  the  films  which  are  now  being 
exhibited. J 

1  "Some  of  the  most  graphic  accounts  of  the  influence  of  pictures  have 
come  from  personal  interviews  with  offenders,  where  in  detail  the  vivid  nature 
of  the  mental  process  is  exposed.  Nor  do  we  have  to  turn  to  offenders  merely 
to  prove  this  point.  Most  of  us  have  had  like  experiences.  A  prominent 
educator,  a  man  of  active  mind  and  purity  of  thought,  tells  me  that  one  of 
his  main  regrets  is  that  he  once  saw  a  certain  pornographic  sketch.  It  was 
indelibly  impressed.  Offenders  we  find,  ....  have  sometimes  been  fairly 
obsessed  and  impelled  by  the  character  of  pictures  seen.  In  this  matter, 
too,  the  pervasion  of  the  sex  element  makes  the  chance  of  future  representa- 
tion all  the  stronger  on  account  of  natural  impulses  in  that  direction.  The 
combination  of  sex  offenses  with  other  criminality  forms  an  unusually  virulent 
admixture  for  later  mental  depiction. 

"When  it  comes  to  motion  pictures  we  have  added  elements  of  force  for 
the  production  of  either  good  or  bad.  Not  only  a  single  event,  but  chapters 
from  life  histories  are  depicted.  Not  alone  is  one  action  or  posture  depicted, 
but  there  is  added  all  of  the  motor  phenomena  active  through  a  period  of  time. 
The  act  is  not  suggested ;  every  detail  of  it  is  made  clear.  The  breaking  open 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  35 

The  motion  picture  interests  do  not  hesitate  to  lay  claim  to 
being  benefactors  of  humanity  in  that  they  are,  through  their 
industrial  and  other  educational  films,  broadening  the  horizons 
of  many  who  would  otherwise  be  limited  by  lack  of  facilities 
for  obtaining  information  more  directly;  that  they  are  stirring 
many  to  action  through  their  illustrations  of  ideal  life  and 
achievements;  that  the  numerous  religious  pictures,  and  others, 
are  sermons  more  powerful  than  any  spoken  word  from  the 

of  a  safe,  the  holding  up  of  a  train,  the  effort  at  suicide  are  all  presented  in 
such  fashion  that  it  is  bound  to  recur  as  a  memory  picture  of  detailed  events, 
if  there  is  any  tendency  or  opportunity  for  its  mental  reproduction.  Added 
force  comes  from  the  concrete  issues  which  are  represented. 

"We  have  had  much  evidence,  sometimes  in  remarkablw  ways,  that  moving 
pictures  may  be  stimulating  to  the  sex  instinct.  We  should  expect  pictures 
of  love-making  and  similar  scenes  to  have  this  effect  on  young  adults  or  older 
adolescents,  but  we  have  very  strikingly  heard  of  it  in  children.  The  effect 
is  not  only  felt  at  the  moment,  but  also  there  is  the  establishment  of  memory 
pictures  which  come  up  at  other  quiet  times,  such  as  when  the  individual  is  in 
bed.  We  have  found  that  bad  sex  habits  sometimes  center  around  these 
pictures.  In  some  instances  a  very  definite  mental  conflict  ensues,  with 
production  of  delinquency  along  other  lines. 

There  can  be  no  fair  consideration  of  the  whole  subject  of  moving  pictures 
unless  we  remember  that,  after  all,  the  amount  of  delinquency  produced  by 
them  corresponds  but  slightly  to  the  immense  number  of  pictures  which  are 
constantly  shown.  This  partly  tends  to  show  the  innocuousness  of  the  greater 
number  of  these  pictures,  but  it  also  brings  us  back  to  our  old  question  of 
personal  equation.  Some  individuals  are  susceptible  to  pictorial  suggestions 
and  others  are  not.  However,  there  is  no  excuse  for  showing  pictures  which 
damage  the  morals  of  any  one. 

The  main  hope  for  the  prevention  of  these  undesirable  effects  will  be  foun" 
in  rigorous  censorship  of  perverting  pictures,  and  in  radical  prosecution  o* 
those  who  produce  and  deal  in  obscene  and  other  demoralizing  pictoria' 
representations.  Never  have  we  heard  one  word  indicating  that  bad  effects 
have  arisen  from  representations  that  could  in  any  way  be  interpreted  as 
productions  of  art.  The  type  of  thing  we  mean  is  altogether  unsavory,  and 
obviously  manufactured  for  its  appeal  to  the  passions,  or  to  other  unhealthy 
interests."— Healy,  William,  The  Individual  Delinquent,  p.  307ff.  See  p.  241ff 
for  cases  showing  effect  of  mental  imagery. 


36  MOTION  PICTURES 

pulpit  or  platform. l  The  trade  journals  are  at  present  boasting 
that  the  industry  can  become  a  power  in  politics  through  the 
judicious  use  of  the  screen.  One  of  their  strongest  arguments 
against  legalized  censorship  is  the  influence  which  they  say  will 
be  wielded  by  censorship  boards  through  the  elimination  of 
scenes  which  might  create  an  atmosphere  unfavorable  to  the 
party  in  control.  In  view  of  these  claims  it  would  seem  to  be  a 
difficult  matter  for  the  industry  to  defend  itself  by  denying  the 
effect  from  the  films  which  they  are  not  so  proud  to  own. 

There  is  no  lack  of  authenticated   individual   instances  of 

1 1  misconduct    resulting   from    the    suggestion    or    instruction    of 

|] motion  pictures.     "Michigan's  experience  tallies  with  that  of 

Illinois  as  a  revelation  of  the  need  of  better  motion  pictures  for 

/all  theatres  in  the  state.  A  survey  of  the  situation  in  Detroit 
was  made  by  the  city  federation  with  astonishing  results.  Vice 
and  crime  were  increasing  so  rapidly  that  the  judge  of  the 
juvenile  court  was  led  to  investigate  the  habits  of  juvenile 
offenders  appearing  before  him  for  the  first  time.  In  an  open 
letter  to  the  Chairman  of  Civics  of  the  Michigan  Federation 
the  judge  said  that  in  a  large  percentage  of  cases  the  suggestion 
had  come  to  these  young  offenders  through  the  motion  picture."  2 
This  quotation  is  taken  from  a  talk  by  Mrs.  Albert  E.  Bulson, 
part  of  which  was  included  in  the  report  of  the  Fourteenth 
Biennial  Convention  of  the  General  Federation  of  Women's 
Clubs,  and  indicates  that  a  direct  relation  does  exist  between 

1  The  National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures    considers  as  one  of  it3 
most  important  duties  the  issuing  of  selected  lists  of  pictures  having   educa- 
tional and  moral  value.     Mr.  Orrin  G.  Cox,  Secretary  of  the  National  Com- 
mittee for  Better  Films,  argues  that  since  a  large  percentage  of  the  patrons 
of  motion  picture  theatres  are  under  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  therefore 
readily  subject  of  suggestion,  much  good  could  be  done  through  constructive 
measures  for  the  improvement  of  programs  by  means  of  co-operation  on  the 
part  of  the  community  with  the  local  exhibitors. — From  a  carbon  copy  of  an 
article  by  Mr.  Cox  which  was  sent  to  the  author  as  an  argument  against 
censorship  by  the  National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures. 

2  Report  of  the  Fourteenth  Biennial  Convention  of  the  Genreal  Federation  of 
Women's  Clubs,  1918,  p.  450. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  37 

motion  pictures  and  crime.  Another  quotation  from  the  same 
talk  gives  an  example  of  a  less  frequent  but  none  the  less  impor- 
tant type  of  effect  of  the  lower  order  of  pictures.  "To  my 
knowledge, "  says  Mrs.  Bulson,  "a  young  school  boy  after  having 
witnessed  a  film  called  'Mothers,  Protect  Your  Daughters', 
secured  a  certain  drug  and  asked  another  boy  to  go  with  him 
and  secure  a  couple  of  girls  to  experiment  upon  with  the  drug. 
The  mother  of  one  of  the  boys  obtained  the  bottle  and  gave  it 
to  a  physician  who  verified  the  statement  made  by  the  boy. 
This  film  might  be  used  as  a  warning  to  a  girl,  but  I  question  the 
advisability  of  exhibiting  the  methods  used  by  white  slavers  to 
our  adolescent  youth."  The  first  quotation  referred  to  the  possi- 
ble ejfects  from  the  general  suggestive  influence  of  motion  pic- 
tures; the  latter,  to  a  more  direct  influence,  that  of  instruction 
in  method. 

A  report  issued  in  1920  by  the  National  Board  of  Review 
presents  the  results  obtained  by  a  questionnaire  which  was  sent 
to  probation  officers  in  cities  in  the  United  States  of  over  ten 
thousand  population  which  had  juvenile  courts.  This  report  is 
entitled  "Motion  Pictures  Not  Guilty,"  and  claims  to  be  a 
verdict  based  on  the  questionnaire  in  relation  to  motion  pictures 
and  juvenile  delinquency.  The  verdict  is  that  there  is  a  "sur- 
prising lack  of  evidence  of  direct  responsibility  of  motion  pictures 
for  juvenile  delinquencies."  Forty-two  replies  were  received. 
Of  these  forty -two,  twenty-seven  asserted  that  to  their  knowledge 
"motion  pictures  were  not  directly  responsible,  to  any  appre- 
ciable extent,  if  at  all,  for  juvenile  delinquency."  Ten  gave 
no  definite  answer  to  the  question  of  responsibility,  due  to  a 
lack  of  direct  evidence  to  support  an  affirmative  answer,  and  not 
being  willing  to  absolve  the  motion  pictures  entirely.  Five  said 
that  motion  pictures  were  directly  responsible  for  an  appreciable 
amount  of  juvenile  delinquency.  On  the  basis  of  these  figures 
the  verdict  of  "not  guilty"  is  reached.  Is  it  justified? 

If  the  verdict  is  interpreted  in  the  strict  meaning  of  the  words 
in  which  it  is  expressed  there  is  sufficient  evidence  for  its  justifi- 
cation. The  report  only  says  that  motion  pictures  are  "not 
directly  responsible"  for  juvenile  delinquency  in  an  appreciable 


38 


MOTION  PICTURES 


number  of  cases,  which  may  be  true.  It  gives  the  impression  to 
the  careless  reader,  however,  that  motion  pictures  do  not  enter 
into  juvenile  delinquency  as  an  appreciable  factor.  The  title 
of  the  report,  "Motion  Pictures  Not  Guilty,"  seems  designed  to 
give  this  impression.  Quoting  from  the  report  itself,  the 
twenty-seven  probation  officers  who  are  lined  up  as  exonerating 
the  pictures  only  said  that  "motion  pictures  were  not  directly 
responsible,  to  an  appreciable  extent",  for  delinquency.  The 
ten  who  were  non-committal  on  account  of  lack  of  records  for 
convicting  the  movies,  nevertheless  had  a  feeling  that  they  might 
be  "sometimes  directly  to  blame."  The  individual  reports  have 
not  been  available  for  examination,  but  the  statements  quoted 
are  the  statements  on  which  the  verdict  of  "not  guilty"  was 
based  in  the  whitewashing  report.  They  are  an  indication  of 
its  weakness. 1 

The  same  report  quotes  from  the  cinema  inquiry  in  Great 
Britain  and  from  an  investigation  by  Mr.  E.  M.  Barrows  of 
cases  of  juvenile  delinquency  in  New  York  City  in  which  the 
"movies"  were  held  responsible.  Both  of  these  quotations, 
while  tending  to  show  that  the  "movies"  cannot  be  held  as  the 
direct  cause  of  delinquency  except  in  a  few  scattered  cases, 
refer  to  the  "large  number  of  cases  in  which  the  'movies'  were 
held  responsible  by  policemen,  judge  sand  reformers"  and  to  the 
generally  held  opinion  of  those  who  deal  with  children  that 
motion  pictures  are  an  influence  in  the  moulding  of  the  lives  of 
their  charges.  If  the  report  does  nothing  else,  it  certainly 
establishes  this  last  point,  which,  after  all,  needs  little  sub- 
stantiation. 

A  more  scientific  piece  of  work  is  the  investigation  conducted 
by  the  Chicago  Motion  Picture  Commission,  the  results  of  which 
were  published  in  detail  in  September,  1920,  as  a  part  of  the 
general  report  of  that  commission.  Professor  Ernest  W. 
Burgess  of  the  University  of  Chicago  supervised  the  investiga- 
tion, which  was  also  conducted  by  the  questionnaire  method. 
Questionnaires  were  sent  to  the  teachers  and  principals  of  the 


1  National  Board  of  Review,  Motion  Pictures  Not  Guilty,  New  York,  1920* 


39 


Chicago  schools,  and  the  tabulations  of  returns  were  made  from 
the  reports  of  two  hundred  and  twenty-three  people,  some  of 
whom  were  principals  of  schools  having  an  average  attendance  of 
aLout  one  thousand  children.  Only  a  few  of  the  two  hundred 
twenty-three  returns  were  made  by  teachers,  since  in  many  cases 
the  principals  made  out  the  questionnaires  on  a  basis  of  reports 
made  to  them  by  the  teachers  under  them.  At  the  committee 
meeting  at  which  Professor  Burgess  delivered  his  final  report, 
there  were  thirteen  principals  present,  representing  about  thirteen 
thousand  children.  This  indicates  that  the  two  hundred  twenty- 
three  questionnaires  whose  reports  were  tabulated  represent 
more  children  than  would  be  expected  had  they  been  only  the 
returns  from  grade  teachers.  They  contain  only  opinions,  but 
they  are  opinions  which  can  be  depended  on  as  the  best  available, 
coming  from  those  who  are  sincerely  interested  in  the  children's 
progress  and  who  are  in  a  position  to  observe  and  interpret  the 
facts. 

It  was  found  that  in  twelve  schools  of  the  one  hundred  twenty- 
five  represented  by  the  questionnaires,  the  attendance  of  motion 
pictures  by  the  children  was  infrequent,  and  it  is  explained 
that  this  infrequency  was  due  possibly  to  inaccessibility  of 
motion  picture  houses  rather  than  to  lack  of  desire.  One  hundred 
and  twenty-five  teachers  reported  that  their  children  attended 
the  movies  from  two  to  four  or  "more  times  a  week.  Ninety 
placed  the  ordinary  attendance  at  one  or  two  times  a  week.  In 
so  far  as  the  effect  of  motion  pictures  on  school  work  was  con- 
cerned, thirfeen  teachers  reported  "no  effect,"  while  twenty- 
eight  declared  the  effect  to  be  predominantly  "educational". 
Five  said  the  effect  depended  on  the  film,  and  eighteen  did  not 
answer  the  question.  Thirty-seven  believed  that  attendance 
at  motion  pictures  accelerated  mental  development  or  improved 
the  general  information  of  the  pupils.  The  rest  of  the  two 
hundred  twenty-three  teachers  and  principals  believed  the  effect 
of  motion  pictures  on  school  children  to  be  harmful  through 
retardation  of  mental  powers,  general  interference  with  school 
work,  rendering  the  children  nervous  and  excitable,  lowering 
vitality,  and  through  tendency  to  have  other  undesirable  effects. 


X**£> 


40  MOTION  PICTURES 

The  information  concerning  the  general  moral  effect  of  the 
movies  is  significant  when  considered  in  the  light  of  the  atten- 
dance figures  just  mentioned.  Thirty-three  teachers  and  princi- 
pals believed  that  they  had  no  moral  effect,  thirty-three  believed 
that  it  depended  on  the  film,  which  is  of  course  true,  and  two 
stated  that  the  general  moral  effect  was  good.  In  opposition  to 
these,  fifty-one  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  effect  was  "generally 
bad,"  sixteen  that  lawlessness  and  disrespect  were  promoted, 
sixteen  that  a  craving  for  excitement  was  induced,  nine  that 
"boy  bandit"  and  robber  games  were  created,  and  nine  that  the 
"brazen,  boy-struck  girl"  was  a  frequent  result.  All  of  the 
two  hundred  and  twenty-three  not  included  above  also  believed 
the  general  moral  effect  to  be  undesirable. 

Direct  questions  were  asked  concerning  the  effect  of  motion 
pictures  on  sex  life  and  respect  for  authority.  The  consenus  of 
opinion  was  that  the  children  became  precocious  about  sex 
matters,  that  there  was  a  general  demoralizing  effect  on  modesty 
and  purity,  that  a  disregard  of  marriage  ties  was  fostered,  and 
that  the  authority  of  teachers  and  parents  was  materially 
lessened.  On  hundred  and  eighty-three  favored  a  board  of 
censors  as  at  least  a  partial  remedy  for  the  situation,  forty-two 
were  non-committal,  and  only  eight  favored  some  other  plan  of 
regulation.  Apparently  none  were  in  favor  of  allowing  public 
opinion  to  be  the  only  control  of  the  movies. 

The  author  has  personally  interviewed  a  number  of  Philadel- 
phia social  workers  in  an  attempt  to  make  certain  that  there  is 
an  appreciable  effect  of  motion  pictures  on  the  people.  A  well- 
defined  opinion  existed  that  there  were  wide-spread  effects,  good 
as  well  as  harmful,  but  that  since  the  cases  handled  by  the  social 
agencies  visited  in  the  main  the  cheaper  houses  which  show  the 
more  questionable  films,  the  effect  on  the  group  observed  by  them 
was  possibly  more  harmful  than  otherwise.  Speaking  for  the 
country  as  a  whole,  this  is  probably  not  true,  and  there  is  little 
reason  to  doubt  that  the  total  good  effect  is  greater  than  the 
total  evil  effect,  for  we  have  seen  that  at  least  three-fourths  of 
the  films  do  not  show  flagrant  violations  of  social  standards. 


A   STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  41 

It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  benefits  which  we  reap  from  our'' 
contacts  with  the  movies;  it  is  much  easier  to  point  out  evils,  and 
it  is  much  easier  to  call  attention  to  the  evils  than  to  arouse 
public  interest  in  the  advantages,  which  do  not  hold  the  attention   \ 
without  effort.     A  distorted  perspective  results,  but  however 
much  the  perspective  is  distorted,  there  is  some  actuality  in  the 
view  presented  to  us.     Motion  pictures  do  influence  those  who 
see  them,  possibly  not  always  directly,  but  by  gradually  forming 
or  altering  ideals  and  their  consequent  conduct. 


42  MOTION  PICTURES 

V 

THE  NATIONAL  BOARD  OF  REVIEW  OF  MOTION  PICTURES 

,  IN  1907  and  1908  two  investigations  were  made  of  the  moving 
picture  situation  in  New  York  City,  one  by  a  joint  committee  of 
the  People's  Institute  and  the  Women's  Municipal  League,  the 
other  by  the  city  police  commissioner.  According  to  subsequent 
reports  of  the  National  Board  of  Review,  "in  both  cases  the 
findings  demonstrated  that,  in  spite  of  some  defects  in  subjects 
and  treatment,  the  large  majority  of  films  were  wholesome." 
The  exhibitors  appealed  to  the  People's  Institute  for  aid  in 
cleaning  up  motion  pictures  in  answer  to  insistent  public  de- 
mands for  improvement,  and  the  plans  resulting  from  their 
/consultations  have  materialized  into  the  present  National  Board 
of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures. 

The  basis  of  the  National  Board  are  the  principles  that  the 

screen  has  a  right  to  freedom,  that  there  can  be  no  absolute 

agreement  of  opinion  as  to  what  is  "precisely  moral  and  what  is 

precisely  immoral, "  or  as  to  "where  questions  of  taste  and  morals 

overlap,"  that  public  opinion,  "which  is  the  compound  of  all 

tastes  and  all  ideas  of  morals  is  the  only  competent  judge  of  the 

screen, "  that  there  can  be  no  proper  functioning  of  public  opinion 

unless  freedom  of  the  screen  exists  in  order  that  the  public  may 

judge  what  shall  be  presented  to  it,  and  that  as  result  of  these 

.    principles,  the  only  just  censorship  is  that  which  is  voluntary 

1     on  the  part  of  the  censor  and  the  censored,  and  is  consequently 

in  accord  with  the  dictates  of  public  opinion.     In  illustrating 

these  ideals,  the  Board  cites  the  example  that  every  newspaper 

is  censored  before  publication  by  the  blue  pencil  of  the  editor 

who  will  not  publish  that  which  runs  counter  to  the  public  taste. 

The  idea  is  that  the  National  Board  is  the  blue  pencil  for  the 

motion  picture  industry  and  is  more  susceptible  to  fluctuations 

in  the  public  tastes,  and  more  easily  reversed  when  in  error. 

|       The  mechanical  means  for  the  carrying  out  of  these  principles 

j    are  a  number  of  committees  of  disinterested  volunteers,  serving 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  43 

without  pay,  and  a  limited  staff  of  paid  workers  for  the  routine 
duties  which  require  more  or  less  constant  attention.  The  main 
committees  of  volunteers  are  the  Executive  Committees,  the 
General  Committee  and  the  Review  Committee.  The  range 
of  their  duties  is  indicated  by  their  titles  with  sufficient  accuracy 
to  obviate  the  necessity  of  explanation.  The  staff  consists  of 
six  secretaries,  known  as  the  Executive,  Advisory,  Review, 
Corresponding,  Membership  and  Assistant  Review  Secretaries, 
whose  duties  are  also  roughly  indicated  by  their  titles. 

The  original  purpose  of  the  Board  was  to  censor  all  pictures 
before  they  were  shown  in  New  York  City.  Since  June,  1909, 
however,  the  scope  of  its  activities  has  been  broadened  to  include 
the  entire  United  States,  and  representatives,  purely  voluntarily, 
keep  the  organization  in  touch  with  the  various  sections  of  the 
nation.  Its  name  was  originally  "The  National  Board  of 
Censorship  of  Motion  Pictures,"  but  due  to  a  certain  amount 
of  odium  which  has  attached  itself  to  the  word  "censorship" 
in  the  minds  of  many  people,  and  to  the  fact  that  a  voluntary 
organization  which  has  little  legal  sanction  or  authority  to  compel 
obedience  to  its  decisions  can  hardly  be  said  to  do  any  censoring, 
the  name  was  soon  changed  to  "National  Board  of  Review  of 
Motion  Pictures." 

The  original  purpose  of  the  Board,  however,  is  no  longer  its 
only  purpose.  Censoring,  or  better,  reviewing,  is  still  its  most 
important  work,  but  a  second  type  of  service  is  now  being 
performed.  Censoring  is  a  purely  critical  function  in  that  its 
purpose  is  to  disapprove  of  certain  more  or  less  definitely  defined 
types  of  pictures.  The  second  service  performed  by  the  Na- 
tional Board  is  constructive,  and  "involves  cooperation  with 
all  of  the  forces  seeking  the  improvement  of  the  photoplay  both 
dramatically  and  socially."  Its  general  nature  is  illustrated  by 
such  samples  of  its  work  as  issuing  selected  lists  of  motion  pictures 
for  various  purposes,  such  as  its  lists  of  Best  Motion  Pictures  for 
Church  and  Semi-Religious  Entertainments,  Pictures  Boys  Want 
and  Grown- Ups  Endorse,  Industrial  Motion  Pictures,  A  Partial 
List  of  Film  Subjects  on  Health,  Disease,  Nursing  and  Allied 
Topics,  Motion  Pictures  Aids  to  Sermons,  Dramatic  Photoplays 


44  MOTION  PICTURES 

on  Standard  Literature,  American  Poetry  and  American  and 
French  History,  Forty  Best  Photoplays  of  1920,  Industrial  Motion 
Pictures,  Monthly  List  of  Selected  Pictures,  and  others.  This 
selection  is  done  under  the  direction  of  the  National  Committee 
for  Better  Films,  which  is  a  part  of  the  National  Board  of  Review. 
Its  aim  is  to  secure  better  films  through  co-operation  with  the 
forces  which  influence  the  trend  in  the  production  of  films  and 
achieve  results  through  selection  rather  than  through  censorship. l 
'  In  the  last  analysis  the  National  Board  of  Review  seems  to  put 
little  faith  in  censorship  as  a  means  of  improving  pictures,  and 
it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  any  other  attitude  could  be  taken, 
since  it  itself  is  an  organization  which,  though  created  primarily 
for  censorship  purposes,  is  of  necessity  driven  to  other  methods 
of  action  by  its  lack  of  power  to  compel  obedience,  legally  or 
by  public  opinion. 

The  National  Committee  for  Better  Films,  however,  does  not 
feel  that  its  constructive  program  should  end  with  the  selection 
of  desirable  films  and  the  publishing  of  lists  of  those  suitable 
for  various  purposes,  but  has  attempted  to  evolve  a  plan  whereby 
the  selections  will  result  in  the  more  frequent  showing  of  the 
better  class  of  picture.  In  answer  to  numerous  requests  a  brief 
outline  has  been  prepared  illustrating  the  manner  in  which 
communities  may  take  full  advantage  of  the  opportunities  offered 
for  the  improvement  of  film  standards  in  their  locality.  Co- 

1  "Fine  pictures — inspiring  in  theme,  realistic  in  acting,  satisfactory  as  to 
entertainment  value  and  moral  quality — pay.  The  public  is  forever  speaking 
its  mind  effectually.  The  selection  of  motion  pictures,  therefore,  is  always 
unconsciously  going  on.  This  selection,  however,  is  accelerated  by  the 
careful  choices  made  by  the  National  Board  of  Review,  by  the  writers,  by 
the  distributors  and  the  exhibiting  managers. 

"This  process  is  far  more  effective  than  any  system  of  censorship.  Our 
laws  forbid  the  publication  of  any  libelous,  obscene,  indecent,  immoral  or 
impure  picture  or  reading  matter.  Strict  law  enforcement  and  selection  are 
the  best  censorship.  They  demonstrate  the  absolute  uselessness  of  arbitrary 
state  and  federal  censorship." — National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures, 
A  Garden  of  American  Motion  Pictures,  January,  1920,  p.  3. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  45 

operation  is  the  first  principle  advocated  in  the  program.  All 
interested  people,  including  the  exhibitors,  should  be  brought 
together  to  discuss  selected  pictures.  The  possibility  of  special 
programs  for  family  nights,  composed  entirely  of  pictures  known 
to  be  up  to  the  highest  standards  through  the  endorsement  of 
the  National  Board  of  Review,  should  be  considered,  and  if 
difficulties  arise,  correspondence  with  the  National  Board  is 
invited.  Publicity  for  these  family  night  programs  must  also 
be  arranged  on  a  co-operative  basis.  Some  plan  for  bringing 
people  to  these  arranged  entertainments  must  be  evolved,  since 
special  programs  cost  extra  money,  and  the  exhibitor  cannot  be 
expected  to  undertake  them  without  compensation.  Above 
all,  a  "well  considered  system  of  education  of  parents  to  develop 
a  public  sentiment  both  for  finer  family  pictures  and  for  selected 
pictures  for  young  people"  must  be  carried  on.  "The  primary 
responsibility  for  attendance  at  motion  picture  entertainments 
rests  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  parents  of  the  town."  "There 
must  be  supervision  and  there  must  also  be  a  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  most  film  dramas  are  made  for  the  entertainment  of 
adults."  »  This  plan  is  said  to  have  the  whole-hearted  co-opera- 
tion of  the  motion  picture  theatre  owners  of  America,  and  is 
worthy  of  more  co-operation  than  it  actually  has  from  all  classes 
of  interested  citizens.  It  is  not,  however,  an  adequate  substitute 
for  legal  censorship  for  it  provides  no  means  of  control  in  com- 
munities which  do  not  happen  to  care  for  selected  pictures. 

The  National  Board  of  Review  always  has  been  a  substitute 
for  legalized  censorship,  a  means  of  satifying  both  those  who  are 
working  for  better  movies  from  the  point  of  view  of  their  moral 
effect  and  those  in  the  industry  who  do  not  desire  legal  super- 
vision of  too  detailed  a  nature.  It  is  a  compromise  between 

1  National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures,  Selected  Pictures  in  the 
Theatres,  May,  1921. 

Bulletin  of  the  Affiliated  Committees  for  Better  Films,  Vol.  V,  No.  5,  May, 
1921. 

Nunerous  other  publications  of  the  National  Board  also  stress  this  plan 
of  community  co-operation  functioning  through  selection  rather  than 
through  censorship. 


46 


MOTION  PICTURES 


freedom  from  legal  supervision  of  motion  pictures  and  federal, 
state  or  local  censorship  by  legally  appointed  boards.     As  a 

8 compromise  without  legal  sanction  in  all  except  a  few  localities 
it  permits  most  of  the  compromising  to  be  done  by  one  party, 
and  places  no  absolute  restrictions  on  the  industry,  which  is  left 
free  to  submit  its  films  for  decision  to  the  National  Board  or  not, 
as  it  sees  fit.  By  its  own  claims,  it  views  not  more  than  99  per  cent, 
and  in  actuality  probably  considerably  less  of  the  annual  produc- 
tion of  motion  pictures  in  the  United  States,  and  it  has  no  ade- 
quate authority  over  those  it  does  view.  When  the  number  of  feet 
of  film  produced  runs  into  the  millions  per  year,  the  one  or  more 
.  per  cent,  which  is  not  viewed  is  not  negligible.  But  granted 
that  it  were  negligible,  has  the  99  per  cent,  been  in  any  way 
improved,  or  rather,  has  it  been  handled  as  well  or  better  than 
it  would  have  been  by  state  or  other  boards  of  censorship? 

It  is  possible  to  compare  the  actions  of  state  boards  of  censor- 
ship with  the  actions  of  the  National  Board  of  Review  on  the 
same  films.  An  example  would  not  be  out  of  place.  Doctor 
Twombley,  who  has  been  previously  mentioned,  compared  228 
films  which  had  been  examined  by  both  the  Pennsylvania  State 
CBoard  of  Censors  and  the  National  Board  of  Review.  In  these 
films  the  Pennsylvania  Board  made  1,464  eliminations  in  accor- 
dance with  their  standards  as  mentioned  in  a  previous  chapter 
and  given  in  detail  in  the  appendix.  The  National  Board  of 
Review  in  these  same  228  films  made  only  47  eliminations.  Out 
of  16  films  condemned  as  a  whole  as  being  so  thoroughly  unde- 
sirable that  it  was  impossible  to  make  eliminations  so  that  they 
could  be  passed,  none  were  condemned  by  the  National  Board, 
and  only  2  eliminations,  both  of  a  minor  nature,  were  made. l 

1  Chase,  Wm.  Sheafe,  Catechism  on  Motion  Pictures,  New  York,  1921,  p.  24. 

The  following  quotation  from  a  published  address  delivered  by  Doctor 
Twombley  at  the  forty-second  annual  meeting  of  the  New  England  Watch 
and  Ward  Society  at  Trinity  Church,  Boston,  Mass.,  on  April  11,  1920,  is  an 
indication  that  such  discrepancies  between  the  work  of  the  National  Board 
of  Review  and  the  Pennsylvania  Board  are  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION 


47 


This  difference  of  opinion  between  the  two  boards  is  all  the  more  I 
remarkable  when  it  is  considered  that  the  official  standards  off 
the  two  organizations,  as  stated  in  the  official  publications  of] 
each,  do  not  vary  to  any  considerable  extent  save  in  phraseology. 
The  expenses  of  the  National  Board  of  Review  do  not  run 
very  high  since  the  workers  are  for  the  most  part  unpaid.  In 
1920,  $17,224.33  was  spent  in  reviewing  pictures.  This  figure 
includes  the  expenses  involved  in  maintaining  offices  and  dis- 
tributing information  concerning  the  judgments  of  the  board 
to  the  cities  and  communities  which  co-operate  with  it.  In  the 
same  year  $20,717.93  was  spent  on  the  constructive  part  of  the 
program,  and  was  used  in  paying  for  traveling  expenses,  printing, 
publications,  and  other  work  of  a  constructive  nature.  The  re- 
ceipts for  the  same  period  were  $38,296.74,  and  were  derived  from  a 
flat  rate  per  reel  for  viewing  pictures,  from  membership  fees,  and 
from  general  contributions. 1  Little  of  this  income  on  which  the 
continued  existence  of  the  board  depends  seems  to  be  independent 
of  the  good  will  of  the  industry  which  is  submitting  to  be  censored. 
Provision  is  made  whereby  no  member  of  the  reviewing  committee 
may  be  in  any  way  connected  with  the  motion  picture  industry, 
and  the  claim  is  thus  made  that  decisions  cannot  be  influenced 
by  producers.  This  does  not  necessarily  follow,  for  it  would  not 
be  an  entirely  unreasonable  course  of  action  on  the  part  of  viewers, 
consciously  or  otherwise,  to  be  as  lenient  as  possible  so  as  not  to 
ruin  any  effectiveness  the  board  might  have  by  incurring  the  ill 
will  of  those  who  support  it.  Cases  in  which  economic  depen-,' 

/   "In  178  films  examined  some  time  ago,  the  Pennsylvania  Board  of  Censors  v-. 
'  made  1,108  eliminations  of  objectionable  scenes  of  immorality  and  lust  and  J 

indecency  of  all  kinds.     In  the  same  178  films,  the  National  Board  of  Review  / 

recommended  41  eliminations  only! 

new  comparison  made  only  this  last  week  between  the  work  of  the 

Pennsylvania  Board  and  that  of  the  National  Board  in  New  York,  shows 

329  eliminations  in  50  films  by  the  Pennsylvania  Board,  and  only  6  by  the 

National  Board  in  the  same  50  films." 


1  National  Board  of  Review  of  Movion  Pictures,  Activities  of,  New  York, 
January  1,  1921,  p.  10. 


48  MOTION  PICTURES 

-  dence  has  influenced  actions  in  regard  to  the  source  of  supplies 
are  not  rare,  and  one  cannot  help  but  feel  suspicious  in  this  case 
in  view  of  the  wide  disparity  of  action  shown  by.  the  above 
comparison  of  the  work  of  an  independent  and  a  dependent  body 
of  reviewers. 1 

Aside  from  the  question  of  economic  dependence,  even  though 
the  expenses  of  the  National  Board  were  to  be  paid  from  some 
other  source  then  they  are  at  present,  is  it  within  reason  to 
suppose  that  producers  would  continue  to  submit  pictures  if 
the  percentage  of  eliminations  recommended  were  much  greater 
than  it  is  at  present,  or,  if  they  did  submit  their  productions  for 
approval,  that  many  more  eliminations  would  be  made  if  recom- 
.  mended?  As  a  question  of  expediency,  it  would  be  of  doubtful 
wisdom  for  the  board  to  recommend  many  changes  in  the 
pictures  presented  to  them  for  the  reason  that  producers  do  not 
take  kindly  to  the  wasting  of  their  financial  investments  and 
would  disregard  the  edicts  of  the  board  in  a  ratio  directly  in- 
creasing with  the  stringency  of  enforcement  of  the  established 
standards. 

1  The  advocates  of  the  National  Board  of  Review  as  the  most  advisable 
means  of  regulating  motion  pictures  have  made  considerable  use  of  the  ap- 
proval given  their  plan  by  the  New  York  State  Conference  of  Mayors  in  1920 
as  evidence  in  their  favor.  The  personnel  of  the  committee  whose  report 
was  adopted  by  the  Conference  is  worthy  of  attention.  Of  the  thirteen 
members  of  the  general  committee,  the  names  of  three  appear  on  the  stationery 
of  the  National  Board,  though  two  of  these  are  listed  as  representing  other 
agencies.  The  secretary  of  the  committee,  though  not  a  member  of  it,  was  a 
member  of  the  National  Advisory  Committee  of  the  National  Board  although 
this  was  not  mentioned  as  one  of  his  qualifications.  Three  other  members 
represent  the  motion  picture  producers,  exhibitors  and  distributors  and  are  so 
listed.  Another  member  who  was  chairman  of  a  sub-committee  on  state 
censorship  which  condemned  it  as  a  means  of  control,  was  a  well-known 
author  who  has  been  noted  for  his  violent  attacks  on  any  form  of  censorship. 
The  other  members  of  the  committee  seem  to  have  been  of  a  more  or  less 
neutral  type.  In  view  of  these  facts  the  conclusions  reached  do  not  seem 
surprising.  See,  New  York  State  Conference  of  Mayors,  Report  of  Special 
Committee  on  Motion  Pictures,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  February  24,  1920. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  49 

The  National  Board  of  Review  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  pre-jj 
venting  previewing  of  motion  pictures  by  legal  boards  of  censors P 
by  substituting  for  such  regulation  the  enforcement  by  state  [ 
and  city  officials  of  its  own  decrees.     It  offers  its  services  to  cities 
and  states  for  co-operation  in  such  legislation  which  in  fact  is 
not  so  different  from  the  type  of  regulation  which  it  so  strenuously 
opposes  except  that  in  the  case  of  legally  constituted  boards 
judgments  are  made  by  responsible  officials  while  in  the  case 
of  the  co-operation  plan  the  previewing  is  done  by  volunteers 
who  are  in  no  way  subject  to  legal  supervision,  nor  can  they  be 
held  responsible  to  anyone  for  their  acts. l     Florida  prevented 
the  passage  of  a  state  censorship  act  by  prohibiting  the  showing 
in  the  state  of  any  pictures  which  had  not  been  passed  by  the 
National  Board. 2     Boston  and  a  number  of  other  cities  have 
adopted  similar  plans. 3     In  these  cases  one  of  the  strongest 

1  A  model  ordinance  for  city,  town  or  village,  favored  by  the  National 
Board  of  Review,  providing  for  the  enforcement  of  its  decisions,  is  included 
in  the  report  of  the  special  committee  on  the  New  York  State  Conference 
of  Mayors  appointed  to  make  an  investigation  into  the  regulation  of  motion 
pictures.     This  report  was  submitted  to,  and  adopted  by  the  Conference  at 
the  semi-annual  meeting  held  in  Albany,  N.  Y.,  February  24,  1920. 

2  Bulletin  of  the  Affiliated  Committees  for  Better  Films,  Vol.  V,  No.  7,  July, 
1921,  4. 

3  Mr.  John  M.  Casey,  Chief  of  the  Licensing  Bureau  of  the  City  of  Boston, 
who  has  charge  of  the  regulation  of  motion  pictures  in  that  city,  in  a  letter 
under  the  date  of  March  9,  1922,  has  explained  the  system  as  follows: 

"The  State  by  legislation  authorizes  the  Mayor  to  grant  licenses  for  all 
amusements  in  the  city  'under  whatever  terms  and  conditions  he  may  deem 
reasonable, '  and  one  condition  that  applies  to  the  exhibition  of  moving  pictures 
is,  'that  all  films  intended  for  public  exhibition  must  be  approved  by  the 
National  Board  of  Review.' 

"The  principal  reason  for  this  condition  lies  in  the  fact  that  we  feel  that 
the  National  Board  of  Review,  by  the  decisions  of  its  reviewers,  more  nearly 
voices  public  sentiment  than  has  been  given  by  any  other  method." 

See  also,  John  M.  Casey,  The  Boston,  Mass.,  Method  of  Motion  Picture 
Regulation,  an  address  read  at  the  Conference  of  City  Officials  and  National 
Board  of  Review,  New  York  City,  October,  1919,  issued  in  pamphlet  form 
by  the  National  Board  of  Review  in  1919. 


50  MOTION  PICTURES 

objections  to  the  National  Board  is  removed  since  its  decisions 
are  given  legal  force,  but  the  other  defects  inherent  in  the  Na- 
tional Board  and  the  fact  that  if  there  is  to  be  any  previewing 
done  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  a  voluntary  board  should 
be  able  to  do  it  more  efficiently  than  one  paid  by  and  accountable 
to  the  state,  render  the  well  meant  proposal  inadvisable. 

One  indication  of  the  influence  which  seems  to  have  been 
exerted  on  the  works  of  the  National  Board  is  its  attitude  on  the 
question  of  censorship.  It  is  openly  opposed  to  legalized  cen- 
sorship and  actively  fights  any  proposal  to  establish  it  in  any 
state  or  community.  Mrs.  Albert  E.  Bulson,  past  president  of 
the  Michigan  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  is  on  record  as 
having  said  that  "telegrams  and  letters  came  pouring  in  to  our 
legislators,  my  officers  and  myself  with  offers  of  speakers  who 
would  present  the  matter  from  the  standpoint  of  the  pro- 
ducers, when  a  censorship  bill  was  being  argued  in  the  Michigan 
legislature. l  It  was  "the  effort  put  forth  by  the  National  Board 
of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures  to  spread  propaganda  against  any 
kind  of  censorship"  which  helped  accomplish  her  conversion  in 
favor  of  censorship. 2  Objections  to  State  Censorship  of  Motion 
Pictures,  Repudiation  of  Motion  Picture  Censorship  in  New  York 
City,  and  The  Case  against  Federal  Censorship  of  Motion  Pictures 
are  the  titles  of  three  of  many  pamphlets  sent  the  author  by  the 
National  Board  of  Review.  All  of  them  were  published  by  the 
National  Board.  Several  investigations  of  the  moral  effects  of 
motion  pictures,  elsewhere  discussed  in  greater  detail,  have 
been  made  by  the  Board,  one  of  which  certainly  failed  to  convey 
an  accurate  impression  of  the  findings. *  More  direct  evidence 
)  is  not  at  hand,  but  the  general  impression  of  those  who  are 
/  independently  working  for  better  movies  that  the  National 
Board  is  not  entirely  a  free  agent  apparently  has  some  foundation 
in  fact. 

1  Mrs.  Albert  E.  Bulson,  in  the  Report  of  the  Fourteenth  Biennial  Convention 
of  the  General  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  pp.  450  and  451.     1918. 
1  Mrs.  Albert  E.  Bulson,  op.  cit. 
1  National  Board  of  Review,  Motion  Pictures  Not  Guilty,  New  York,  1920. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  51 

We  may,  then,  without  impugning  the  motives  of  the  volunteer 
workers  of  the  National  Board  of  Review,  summarize  by  saying 
that  the  value  of  such  an  unofficial  organization  is  much  to  be 
doubted,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  its  existence  may  too  easily  be 
jeopardized  by  those  whom  it  is  supposed  to  regulate.  It  has 
been  held  up  as  a  substitute  for  state  censorship.  It  can  never 
fulfill  that  role.  Its  decisions  cannot  be  enforced.  Public 
opinion  is  the  only  power  which  it  claims  to  have  behind  it 
throughout  the  country,  and  public  opinion  is  far  from  being 
unanimous  in  giving  its  support  to  anything.  Its  decisions 
therefore  will  not  be  binding  unless  the  exhibitor  wants  it  to  be 
binding,  which  is  an  unsatisfactory  state  of  affairs,  or  in  those 
scattered  districts  where  the  people  know  and  are  willing  to 
abide  by  the  rulings  which  are  distributed  to  a  number  of  com- 
munities by  the  board,  which  again  is  a  situation  not  above 
criticism. 

This  does  not  mean  that  the  National  Board  of  Review  has  no 
function  it  can  perform  in  the  process  of  bettering  conditions  in 
the  motion  picture  industry.  It  means  that  a  negative  policy 
cannot  be  carried  out  against  exhibitors  who  believe  they  can 
make  money  by  violations  of  the  negative  decisions  unless  some 
higher  authority  stands  behind  those  decisions  with  the  power  to 
compel  obedience.  If  the  National  Board  of  Review  wishes  to 
aid  the  "better  movies"  campaign  it  must  emphasize  its  con- 
structive policies.  Its  program  must  be  one  of  education,  of 
education  of  the  public  and  the  industry.  The  Public  must  be 
told  what  are  the  better  pictures,  which  ones  are  suitable  for 
religious,  educational,  children's  amusement,  community  health 
and  other  purposes.  It  is  said  that  only  one- third  of  the  pro- 
jection machines  in  this  country  are  owned  by  theatres,  the 
other  two-thirds  being  owned  by  individuals,  schools,  churches 
and  other  similar  organizations.  The  National  Board  of  Review 
has  here  a  large  field  to  till,  in  that  it  may  develop  its  present 
constructive  program  and  assist  in  directing  the  programs  of 
these  machines.  It  may  also  direct  the  attention  of  the  public 
to  the  better  type  of  picture  to  be  seen  at  motion  picture  houses. 
It  may  continue  in  its  endeavors  to  ascertain  the  type  of  better 


52  MOTION  PICTURES 

picture  which  the  public  wants  and  will  pay  for.  It  may  aid 
in  showing  the  light  to  the  producers  who  still  believe  that  the 
grosser  sex  play  is  the  most  paying  proposition.  It  may  advise 
legislators,  furnish  data  on  the  probable  effects  of  proposed 
legislation,  advise  voters  on  sound  bases  of  facts  as  to  the  probable 
effect  of  their  ballots  on  motion  picture  problems.  There  is  no 
end  to  the  possibilities  which  lie  before  the  National  Board  of 
Review  if  it  pursues  a  purely  constructive  program  and  abandons 
its  negative  policies  to  the  organization  which  is  best  fitted  to 
carry  them  out,  the  government.  It  may  be  said  that  the 
recent  activities  of  the  National  Board  of  Review  show  a  decided 
tendency  to  emphasize  the  work  for  which  it  is  best  adapted. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  53 

VI 

FEDERAL  LEGISLATION 

MOST  of  the  Federal  legislation  which  has  been  enacted  con- 
cerning motion  pictures  has  been  tax  legislation.  Probably  the 
heaviest  of  the  taxes  has  been  the  10  per  cent,  tax  on  admissions 
which  was  levied  in  1918,  and  which  applies  not  only  to  motion 
picture  theatres  but  also  to  all  admissions  to  places  of  amuse- 
ment, such  as  legitimate  theatres,  baseball  games,  concerts, 
cabarets  and  other  similar  places.  The  government  collected 
over  $89,000,000  from  this  source  during  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June,  1921. l  Possibly  three-fourths  of  this  amount  was  con- 
tributed by  motion  picture  theatres,  according  to  the  best 
estimates  available.  It  is  regretable  that  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment has  found  it  impossible  to  separate  the  amounts  paid  by 
the  various  kinds  of  places  of  amusement  which  pay  the  10  per 
cent,  tax  since  such  figures  would  furnish  a  valuable  index  for  the 
estimation  of  the  condition  of  the  industry  from  period  to  period. 
We  are  again  faced  with  the  problem  resulting  from  the  utter 
lack  of  available  statistics  concerning  the  motion  picture  industry 
as  a  whole,  and  until  such  figures  are  available  no  accurate  or 
final  determination  of  the  effects  of  taxation  or  other  business 
influences  can  be  made. 

The  industry  is  of  course  also  subject  to  other  revenue  meas- 
ures by  the  Federal  government. z  Export  and  import  duties 
have  been  levied  on  raw  and  exposed  film,  cameras  and  other 
mechanical  appliances  necessary  to  the  trade.  These  are  still 
being  fought  and  defended.  There  is  nothing  new  in  the  discus- 
sion, which  is  only  a  repetition  of  all  of  the  old  high  and  low 
tariff  debates.  A  5  per  cent,  tax  on  the  monthly  totals  of  film 

1  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  Annual  Report,  1921,  p.  90. 

2  See,  Cannon,  Lucius  H.  Motion  Pictures,  Laws,  Ordinances  and  Regula- 
tions on  Censorship,  Minors  and   Other   Related   Subjects,  St.  Louis  Public 
Library,  July,  1920,  p.  124. 


54  MOTION  PICTURES 

rentals  has  just  been  repealed  by  Congress  due  to  the  insistent 
and  practically  unopposed  efforts  of  leaders  in  the  trade  who 
were  able  to  devote  much  of  their  time  to  lobbying  in  Washington 
during  the  past  legislative  session.  This  film  rental  tax,  which 
together  with  the  10  per  cent,  admissions  tax  on  ten  cent  admis- 
sions, has  been  ineffective  since  January  1,  1922,  was  one  of  the 
most  bitterly  fought  taxes  levied  on  motion  pictures.  The 
contention  usually  offered  was  that  it  was  overburdensome  and 
too  great  a  handicap  to  be  successfully  borne,  though  the  industry 
seems  to  have  developed  at  an  extraordinary  rate  even  while  it 
was  enforced.  The  payment  of  taxes  always  hurts,  especially 
when  they  are  as  direct  as  the  5  per  cent,  film  rentals  tax  and  the 
10  per  cent,  admissions  tax.  The  clamor  against  these 
"confiscatory  measures"  should  therefore  not  be  taken  too 
seriously. 

Another  type  of  federal  legislation  is  that  designed  to  protect 
the  military  from  ridicule  and  defamation.  This  legislation 
forbids  the  wearing  of  any  American  military  uniform  by  a 
motion  picture  actor  in  a  play  in  which  his  conduct  would  be 
such  as  to  lower  the  respect  for  the  service.  This  would  hardly 
be  worth  mentioning  in  a  social  study  were  it  not  for  the  fact 
that  its  enforcement  has  been  strict  though  no  special  means  of 
compelling  conformity  were  provided  by  the  act.  The  govern- 
ment has  been  able  to  enforce  this  legislation  because  public 
opinion  has  been  unquestionably  back  of  it  and  because  no 
particularly  great  profit  can  be  made  by  its  violation. 

Motion  picture  plays  may  be  copyrighted  under  the  laws  of  the 
federal  government  upon  compliance  with  practically  the  same 
requirements  as  are  imposed  on  the  authors  of  books  or  articles 
and  on  photographers.  The  court  decision  which  has  had  the 
greatest  effect  on  copyright  rights  has  been  that  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  in  which  it  held  that  a  contract  transfer- 
ring the  production  privileges  for  presentation  on  the  legitimate 
stage  of  a  literary  work  did  not  necessarily  transfer  the  motion 
picture  production  privileges  unless  specifically  so  stated  in  the 
contract.  There  is  adequate  protection  granted  to  motion 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION 

picture  producers  and  little  or  no  complaint  is  evident  from  any 
source  in  regard  to  this  phase  of  Federal  legislation. 1 

Immoral  motion  pictures  are  classed  for  purposes  of  Federal 
regulation  with  immoral  books,  pictures  and  other  indecent 
matter,  and  the  penalty  for  bringing  them  into  the  country  or  -**" 
for  transporting  them  from  one  State  to  another  is  set  at  $5,000 
fine  or  five  years'  imprisonment,  or  both.  The  only  statute 
definition  of  what  constitutes  an  immoral  film  is  the  phrase 

"obscene,    lewd,    or    lascivious,    or    any    filthy motion 

picture"  which  has  been  considered  by  the  courts  to  be  an 
adequate  definition  for  legal  purposes,  though  claims  are  still  / 
being  made  that  the  vagueness  of  similar  phrases  in  State  legisla- 
tion renders  them  unconstitutional.  Pictures  of  prize  fights,  or 
"pugilistic  encounters,  under  whatever  name,"  are  also  for- 
bidden to  be  brought  into  the  country  or  transported  from  one 
State  to  another  to  be  publicly  exhibited,  and  a  penalty  of  not 
more  than  $1,000  fine  or  one  year  imprisonment,  or  both,  is 
provided.  Otherwise  no  Federal  provision  has  been  made  for 
the  protection  of  the  public  morals  from  possible  undesirable 
motion  picture  films. 

Of  the  two  statutes  quoted  in  the  above  paragraph,  the  one 
prohibiting  the  transportation  of  prize  fight  pictures  is  the  most 
effectively  enforced.  This  is  undoubtedly  due  to  the  strictness 
of  definition  of  the  forbidden  act.  "Prize  fight"  is  a  definite 
phrase,  and  admits  of  little  quibbling  over  the  meaning  and 
interpretation  of  the  law,  and  cannot  be  misunderstood  even  in 
the  absence  of  a  special  interpretative  body.  In  spite  of  the 
clarity  of  the  law,  it  has  recently  been  evaded  by- showing  every- 
thing connected  with  a  world's  championship  fight  except  the 
actual  fighting.  This  evasion  is  strictly  within  the  letter  of 
the  law,  and  could  not  be  prevented  under  any  censorship  act 
as  yet  devised.  Similar  situations  have  arisen  before  State 
censorship  boards  in  the  cases  of  murders,  where,  for  example, 
the  pointing  of  the  revolver,  the  raising  of  the  knife,  are  per- 
mitted, while  the  precise  moment  of  the  killing  is  deleted. 

1  Wid's  Year  Book,  New  York,  1920,  pp.  305,  331,  333. 


56  MOTION  PICTURES 

This  seems  a  mere  quibble  over  technicalities,  yet  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  further  restrictions  could  be  imposed  without  danger 
of  foolish  prudishness,  even  if  it  were  unquestionably  desirable 
to  do  so.  It  would  seem  that  with  this  exception  to  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  meaning  of  the  act  that  its  enforcement  should 
hardly  be  called  effective,  yet  it  is  effective,  but  not  due  solely 
to  the  efficiency  of  the  enforcement  officers,  though  their  work 
has  been  of  the  highest  type  possible  under  the  existing  legisla- 
tion .  It  is  the  better  type  of  theatre  which  has  aided  in  enforcing 
the  law  by  refusing  to  show  pictures  which  are  uncontrovertibly 
forbidden.  With  motion  pictures  under  fire  as  they  are  at  the 
present  time,  owners  cannot  afford  to  endanger  their  cause  by 
flagrantly  violating  Federal  statutes  with  no  chance  of  contend- 
ing that  they  have  actually  complied  with  them,  as  has  been 
done  in  the  case  of  the  laws  against  immoral  pictures.  This 
voluntary  conformity  may  also  be  due  to  personal  desire  to 
keep  in  accordance  with  the  law,  and  in  many  cases  this  un- 
doubtedly is  the  motive  for  refusing  to  show  pictures  illegally. 
Whatever  the  reason,  few  exhibitors  will  show  pictures  which 
J  ^  y*  «•  they  have  been  definitely  forbidden  to  show,  and  it  is  for  this 
\u.  LbJ&V*  reason  that  the  legislation  against  the  exhibition  prize  fight  is 
/  being  obeyed  in  most  cases. 

These  motives,  however,  are  effective  not  for  all  theatres 
but  for  a  majority  only.  There  will  always  be  a  considerable 
number  of  theatres  on  the  fringe  of  the  trade  which  will  show 
anything  for  profit,  and  it  is  these  theatres  which  can  never  be 
reached  except  by  some  highly  efficient  legalized  body  whose 
primary  duty  is  to  do  the  reaching,  and  who  will  be  held  accounta- 
ble if  they  fail.  The  Federal  government  provides  no  such  body. 

The  five  state  boards  of  censorship  annually  make  thousands 
of  eliminations  from  the  motion  picture  films  presented  to  them 
for  approval.  In  Pennsylvania  alone  from  the  first  of  December, 
1917,  until  the  last  of  November,  1918,  out  of  11,460  reels  of 
film  of  a  thousand  feet  each,  450  were  condemned.  Including 
minor  eliminations,  during  the  same  period  6,142  cuts'  were 
made.  One  hundred  and  eight  subjects  were  condemned  and 
157  subjects  were  reconstructed.  From  March,  1917,  until 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  57 

October,  1918,  there  were  over  125  prosecutions  by  the  Penn- 
sylvania Board  of  Censors  in  which  fines  were  inflicted  for  the 
illegal  showing  of  pictures.  Statistics  for  Kansas,  Maryland, 
Ohio  and  New  York  show  proportionate  eliminations  and 
prosecutions.  We  have  seen  the  standards  on  which  these 
eliminations  are  made.  Unless  the  judgments  of  the  state 
boards  are  greatly  at  fault,  the  Federal  legislation  prohibiting 
the  transportations  of  lewd,  obscene,  lascivious  and  filthy 
motion  pictures  is  little  more  than  an  obsolete  blue  law. 

There  is  little  probability  that  in  its  present  form  it  will  ever 
be  anything  but  a  dead  letter  law.  The  terms  used  in  it  are 
subject  to  various  interpretations,  or,  rather,  specific  scenes  and 
subjects  may  or  may  not  be  in  violation  of  them,  depending  on 
who  is  doing  the  deciding.  It  has  been  found  necessary  to  have 
an  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  to  put  transportation  legisla 
tion  into  effect.  The  Federal  Trade  Commission  has  turned  out 
to  be  a  useful  body.  The  courts  alone  were  unable  to  handle 
the  duties  which  have  been  out  of  necessity  given  over  to  these 
commissions.  The  courts  and  their  subsidiary  officials  have 
proved  themselves  incapable  of  handling  the  motion  picture 
situation  as  is  evidenced  by  the  large  number  of  eliminations 
and  prosecutions  which  it  is  necessary  for  the  few  state  anc 
city  boards  now  in  operation  to  make,  though  their  operations 
in  no  way  interfere  with  the  operations  of  Federal  legislation  on 
the  subject. 

Bills  have  been  introduced  into  Congress  proposing  to  estab- 
lish a  national  division  of  film  censorship  under  the  Bureau  of 
Education,  and  to  define  more  accurately  the  things  which  shall 
be  excluded  from  interstate  commerce.  They  have  all  failed  of 
passage.  It  was  best  that  they  should.  In  1920,  for  ex- 
ample, a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
to  prohibit  the  carrying  of  films  showing  or  simulating  the  acts 
of  "ex-convicts,  desperadoes,  bandits,  train  robbers,  bank 
robbers,  or  outlaws."  During  the  same  year  Senator  Gore 
introduced  a  similar  bill  in  the  Senate.  It  would  have  been  of 
doubtful  wisdom  to  pass  either  bill,  for  there  is  little  reason  to 
believe  that  their  enforcement  would  have  been  more  successful 


58 


MOTION  PICTURES 


than  the  laws  already  covering  the  subject  unless  some  radically 
new  measures  were  taken. 

Representative  D.  M.  Hughes,  of  Georgia,  introduced  on 
December  6,  1915,  House  of  Representatives,  Bill  456,  providing 
or  the  creation  of  a  Federal  motion  picture  commission  which 
was  to  be  a  division  of  the  Bureau  of  Education.  Hearings  were 
held  by  the  House  Committee  on  Education,  of  which  Mr. 
Hughes  was  Chairman.  The  opposition  to  it  as  shown  by  the 
witnesses  and  documents  against  it  came  mainly  from  the  motion 
picture  interests,  though  there  were  some  objections  raised  by 
those  who  had  no  apparent  connection  with  the  industry.  The 
significant  thing  about  the  evidence  introduced  is  that  it  was 
practically  all  nothing  more  than  personal  opinion,  which  may  or 
may  not  have  been  correct,  but  which  should  have  been  sup- 
ported by  more  evidence  than  was  introduced.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  fiughes  bill  was  defeated  on  its  merits,  though 
there  is  a  likelihood  that  its  passage  in  1915  or  1916  would  have 
been  unfortunate.  l 

Any  Federal  commission   to  censor  motion  pictures  before 

their  licensing  for  exhibition  would  be  unwise  at  the  present 

time.     There  cannot  be  said  to   be  any  general  consensus  of 

opinion  in  favor  of  legalized  previewing  of  pictures  throughout 

the  nation,  though  this  must  not  be  taken  to  mean  that  there 

is  no  sentiment  against  the  type  of  picture  which  the  censor 

\jwould  be  called  upon  to  eliminate.     Only  a  handful  of  the  many 

I/states  and  cities  in  the  country  have  censorship  legislation  in 

I  force,  and  the  remainder  are  not  yet  ready  to  take  such  action, 

If  or  to  have  it  thrust  upon  them.     By  the  form  of  our  government, 

I  the  general  police  power,  under  which  such  action  would  natur- 

\   ally  fall,  belongs  residually  to  the  separate  states,  and  is  in  turn 

\  delegated  in  part  by  them  to  the  local  communities.     Until 

1  The  Hughes  Bill,  H.  R.  456,  has  reappeared  in  practically  the  same  form 
in  H.  R.  10,  577,  "A  Bill  to  create  a  new  division  of  the  Bureau  of  Education, 
to  be  known  as  the  Federal  Motion  Picture  Commission,  and  definining  its 
powers  and  duties, "  which  was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
February  22,  1922,  by  Mr.  Appleby  of  New  Jersey. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  59 

there  is  a  more  general  belief  in  the  principle  of  legalized  censor-ft 
ship,  proven  to  exist  by  laws  actually  in  effect,  it  would  be 
poor  governmental  policy  to  take  a  portion  of  the  police  power 
customarily  exercised  by  the  states  and  their  agencies  away 
from  the  governmental  subdivisions  which  now  hold  it  on  th 
pretext   of   regulating   interstate   commerce.     Aside   from    th 
technical  administrative  difficulties  which  would  be  encountere 
there  would  be  so  many  areas  of  considerable  importance  in  whic 
public  opinion  would  not  permit  the  enforcement  of  national 
censorship  legislation  that  the  resulting  moral  deterioration  i 
those  sections  would  largely  offset  the  possible  beneficial  effec 
in  others. 

It  may  then  be  said  that  the  existing  Federal  legisla- 
tion governing  the  motion  picture  industry  is  sufficiently  well 
framed  and  inclusive  to  serve  the  required  purposes,  though  it 
is  not  always  achieving  the  results  for  which  it  was  intended  due 
to  lack  of  local  co-operation  and  of  specifically  assigned  enforce- 
ment officers.  No  unanimity  of  opinion  on  the  motion  picture 
question  has  been  shown  to  exist  among  the  forty-eight  states  of 
the  Union  and  more  stringent  action  of  a  national  character  is 
therefore  not  to  be  urged  until  some  future  date  when  the  assump- 
tion of  police  power  by  the  national  government  would  meet 
with  general  approval.  No  sound  objections  to  national  censor- 
ship on  grounds  other  than  of  policy  have  been  raised. 


60  MOTION  PICTURES 


VII 


LOCAL  LEGISLATION:  Municipal  Regulation 


THAT  the  police  authorities  have  the  power  to  stop  the  showing 
/  of  any  picture  which  they  believe  undesirable  from  the  point  of 
1  view  of  the  public  welfare  is  well  known.     This  power  is  fre- 
quently exercised  even  in  states  which  have  state  supervising 
officials,  such  as  Pennsylvania.     A  recent  example  of  this  was 

/the  ordering  of  the  withdrawal  of  all  motion  pictures  in  which 
Roscoe  Arbuckle  appeared  as  an  actor  from  the  programs  of  all 
Philadelphia  theatres  by  Mayor  Moore  on  September  11,  1921, 
on  the  ground  that  further  exhibitions  of  pictures  in  which 
Arbuckle  appeared  would  tend  to  offend  public  morals  in  view  of 
the  charges  which  were  then  pending  against  Arbuckle  in 
California.  This  action  by  Mayor  Moore  was  similar  to  that 
of  the  authorities  in  Los  Angeles,  Memphis,  Chicago,  New  York, 
Pittsburgh,  Washington  and  other  cities,  and  was  taken  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  the  charges  had  not  been  proven.  Other  uses 
of  the  police  power  were  made  by  a  number  of  city  officials  in 
the  case  of  films  such  as  "The  Birth  of  a  Nation,"  which  might 
have  caused  disturbances  between  races. 

As  a  method  of  control  of  the  motion  pictures  it  has  proven 
inadequate  because  the  proper  surveillance  of  pictures  requires 
an  adequate  separate  force  and  cannot  properly  be  done  as  a  side 
line  duty  of  officials  elected  for  other  purposes;  because  if  separate 
officials  must  be  maintained  for  censorship  it  is  better  that  they 
should  be  state  than  local  officials  in  order  to  eliminate  as  far 
as  possible  the  variations  of  standards  with  their  consequent 
expense  to  the  producers  and  loss  of  efficiency  in  the  process  of 
censoring;  and  because  local  officials  have  in  the  past  been  found 
to  be  incompetent,  or  undesirous  of  performing  censorship  duties 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  61 

on  account  of  either  improper  personal  training  or  motives. 
The  general  tendency  is  to  use  this  local  power  only  when  the 
danger  of  disturbance  of  the  peace  is  great  or  when  the  picture 
is  so  grossly  offensive  to  decency  as  to  agitate  a  group  of  voters 
into  definite  action  and  thus  spur  the  elected  officials  into  the 
performance  of  their  duties. 

Local  motion  picture  regulation  has  been  confined  to  municipal 
regulation,  due  to  the  fact  that  motion  picture  theatres  are  an 
urban  rather  than  a  rural  institution. *  As  was  natural,  the  first 
censorship  in  this  country  was  city  censorship  enforced  by  the 
ordinary  police  officials,  and  was  nothing  more  than  the  adapta- 
tion of  existing  machinery  of  government  to  new  conditions  in 
the  simplest  possible  way  as  the  new  conditions  arose.  If 
pictures  were  found  to  be  immoral  in  the  judgment  of  the  city 
officials  they  were  eliminated  just  as  immoral  legitimate  plays 
were  eliminated,  that  is,  by  action  of  the  mayor  or  his  subordinate 
officials.  Out  of  this  first  method  of  meeting  the  problem  of 
the  undesirable  motion  picture  has  grown  what  is  possibly  the 
most  common  system  of  censorship  in  use  in  the  United  States 
today,  that  of  a  fioard  of  city^ensors  acting  under  the  city  police 
department,  frequently  consisting  of  regularly  appointed  officers 
assigned^  to"  this  special  duty,  responsible  to  the  mayor  for  the 
proper  performance  of  their  work.  If  sufficient  attention  is 
given  to  the  qualifications  of  the  men  and  women  selected  for 
this  duty  it  may  be  the  most  efficient  method  of  municipal  regula- 
tion due  to  its  flexibility  in  operation  and  centralization  of  final 
authority  in  the  hands  of  an  accountable  elective  public  official. 
Chicago,  New  York  and  many  other  cities  have  used  this  general 
type  of  censorship  with  considerable  success,  and  there  is  little 
doubt  but  that  if  municipal  censorship  is  shown  to  be  desirable 
this  system  should  meet  with  much  favor  in  spite  of  the  cries  of 

JA  good  discussion  of  censorship  for  all  theatres  which  has  added  value 
because  it  was  written  by  a  man  who  has  had  years  of  personal  experience 
in  handling  the  problems  of  the  immoral  play,  is  contained  in  the  article,    1 
The  Theatre  and  the  Law,  by  William  McAdoo,  Chief  City  Magistrate  of  11 
New  York,  published  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post,  January  28,  1922. 


62  MOTION  PICTURES 

"graft",  "incompetence",  and  "personal  favor"  which  are 
always  raised  when  its  use  is  being  considered. l 

While  numerous  variations  of  this  municipal  censorship  board 
have  been  tried  throughout  the  country,  in  the  principles  in- 
volved and  in  the  results  achieved  by  them  few  differences  of 
practical  importance  are  noticeable,  and  these  few  need  little 
consideration  here  for  the  same  reason  that  local  censorship  needs 
little  consideration  in  this  work,  and  that  is  an  objection  to  this 
type  of  regulation  which  has  never  been  overcome,  the  objection 
that  local  regulation  of  a  national  institution  of  the  importance 
of  motion  pictures  is  economically  and  socially  unsound  unless 
some  centralizing  control  is  imposed. 2  It  is  obviously  impossible 
for  any  such  control  to  be  instituted  nationally,  and  as  yet  no 
practical  suggestion  has  been  made  for  state  control  of  municipal 
censorship.  It  is  difficult  to  see  just  how  any  plan  of  state 
control  of  local  regulation  could  be  put  into  effect  for  some  time 

1  Chicago,  for  example,  has  had  this  type  of  motion  picture  regulation. 
Section  1625,  as  amended  May  24,  1915,  of  the  City  Ordinances  specifies 

that:  "It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person,  firm  or  corporation  to  lease  or 
transfer,  or  otherwise  put  into  circulation,  any  motion  picture,  plates,  films, 
rolls  or  other  like  articles  or  apparatus  from  which  a  series  of  pictures  for  public 
exhibition  can  be  produced,  for  the  purpose  of  exhibition  within  the  city, 
without  first  having  secured  a  permit  therefor  from  the  general  superintendent 
of  police  of  Chicago. 

"  If  a  picture  or  series  of  pictures  for  the  showing  or  exhibition  of  which  an 
application  for  a  permit  is  made,  is  immoral  or  obscene,  or  portrays  any 
riotous,  disorderly  or  other  unlawful  scene,  or  has  a  tendency  to  disturb  the 
public  peace,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  general  superintendent  to  refuse  such 
permit;  otherwise  it  shall  be  his  duty  to  grant  such  permit."  Department  of 
Police,  City  of  Chicago,  City  Ordinances  Governing  the  Exhibition  of  Moving 
Pictures.  (A  recent  undated  publication.) 

2  See,   Cannon,     Lucius    H.,     Motion    Pictures,    Laws,   Ordinances    and 
Regulations  on  Censorship,  Minors  and  Other  Related  Subjects,  St.  Louis  Public 
Library,  July,  1920,  for  examples  of  local  regulation  of   motion   pictures. 
One  distinct  type  of  local  regulation,  that  of  the  enforcement  of  the  decisions 
of  the  National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures  by  city  officials,  has  been 
considered  in  the  chapter  on  the  National  Board  of  Review. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  63 

to  come  since  in  the  past  our  political  structure  has  not  lent 
itself  easily  to  the  imposition  of  centralizing  organizations  on 
local  agencies  of  government.  The  impossibility  of  adequate 
national  or  state  guidance  of  the  existing  local  governmental 
agencies  such  as  the  city,  county,  or  township,  forces  us  to  the 
conclusion  that  such  local  regulation  of  motion  pictures  is  not 
the  most  advisable  form  of  regulation. 

This  does  not  mean  that  city  censors  should  be  abolished,  or 
that  they  have  performed  no  service  in  the  past.  The  report  of 
the  Chicago  Motion  Picture  Commission  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  they  are  performing  a  most  useful  function.  Not  only  are 
they  now  rendering  society  a  valuable  service,  but  they  were 
also  instrumental  in  demonstrating  the  desirability  of  legalized 
censorship  in  other  forms.  While  they  are  not  the  most  satis- 
factory  type  of  regulation  they  are  certainly  better  than  none 
at  all. 

In  a  way  local  control  of  motion  pictures  may  be  compared 
with  local  option  in  regard  to  the  liquor  trade.  Each  is  the 
first  stage  in  a  gradual  evolutionary  process.  This  comparison, 
with  corresponding  prophecies  by  reformers  concerning  the 
future,  is  not  uncommon,  and  contains  some  measure  of  truth, 
but  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  the  case  of  alcoholic  liquors 
the  fight  was  against  an  alleged  absolute  evil  with  no  important 
redeeming  features.  This  is  far  from  the  case  in  the  fight  for 
motion  picture  regulation,  for  motion  pictures  admittedly  contain 
extremely  great  possibilities  for  social  betterment.  In  the  one 
case  the  solution  demanded  had  to  be  prohibition;  in  the  other 
it  cannot  be  more  than  reasonable  regulation.  Although  this 
analogy  is  not  entirely  accurate  it  serves  its  purpose  here  if  it 
illustrates  the  fact  that  however  valuable  local  censorship  is 
today,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  anything  final  in  motion  picture 
legislation,  but  only  as  a  stepping^  stone  on  the  way  to  some 
Setter  plan. 


64  MOTION  PICTURES 

VIII 
LOCAL  LEGISLATION:    State  Boards  of  Censorship 

SINCE  it  appears  on  the  basis  of  the  investigations  discussed 
in  the  preceding  chapter  that  at  least  a  fifth  of  the  motion 
picture  plays  now  being  shown  to  the  public  tend  to  have  some 
demoralizing  effect  on  those  who  see  them,  and  since  approxi- 
mately twenty  million  people  daily  attend  motion  picture  shows 
in  this  country  alone,  the  total  effect  on  the  ideals  and  consequent 
activities  is  far  from  negligible.  The  four-fifths  of  the  pictures 
which  either  have  a  positive  tendency  to  create  conformity  to  the 
accepted  standards  or  which  have  practically  no  effect  at  all 
need  not  receive  lengthy  consideration  in  a  discussion  of  legalized 
censorship.  The  word  censorship  itself  implies  the  fact  that  the 
duty  of  a  censor  is  to  eliminate  the  undesirable  rather  than  to 
direct  his  attention  to  the  constructive  side  of  the  question. 
His  work  is  almost  entirely  negative,  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that 
many  of  the  attacks  against  his  office  have  been  launched. 
The  justice  of  such  attacks  may  be  judged  by  the  amount  of 
negative  work  which  has  had  to  be  done.  Frontier  conditio 
in  industry  as  well  as  in  colonization  demand  harsh  measures. 

It  is  as  a  state  organization  that  censorship  has  achieved  its 
greatest  importance  in  the  United  States,  and  it  is  consequently 
against  this  particular  type  of  regulation  that  the  most  severe 
criticism  has  been  levied.  For  this  reason  the  general  arguments 
for  and  against  legalized  censorship  will  here  be  discussed  as  a 
part  of  the  state  censorship  battle,  though  many  of  the  principles 
involved  apply  equally  to  municipal  and  Federal  control.  These 
recurrent  principles  will  not  be  mentioned  in  support  of  each 
case  to  which  they  apply,  for  their  application  is  so  apparent 
that  such  repetition  would  be  tedious  and  without  value.. 

State  censorship  boards  are  supplementary  to  the  ordinary 
judicial  and  administrative  systems  and  do  not  supplant  them 
as  is  commonly  supposed.  For  example,  the  mayor  of  any  Penn- 
sylvania city  has  authority  to  forbid  the  showing  of  any  picture 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  65 

he  believes  exceptionally  harmful  to  the  public  welfare  not- 
withstanding a  possible  license  for  exhibition  from  the  state 
board.  The  board  of  censors  only  prescribes  a  standard  below 
which  no  picture  is  permitted  to  be  exhibited.  Other  state 
agencies  may  compel  conformity  to  higher  standards  if  they 
wish  but  they  may  not  lower  the  standards  enforced  by  the 
state  authorities,  excepting  the  courts,  which  may  reverse  cen- 
sorship decisions  if  they  are  unreasonable  or  unquestionably 
beyond  the  authority  granted  by  the  state  legislature. 

Pennsylvania  was  the  first  state  to  adopt  the  principle  of 
motion  picture  censorship  through  a  state  board,  and  has  been 
followed  in  the  adoption  of  this  principle  by  Kansas,  Ohio, 
Maryland,  New  York  and  Virginia.  The  first  Pennsylvania 
Board  of  Censors  was  created  by  the  Act  of  Assembly  approved 
by  the  Governor,  John  K.  Tener,  June  19,  1911.  This  act  was  in 
effect  until  May  15,  1915,  when  it  was  revised  by  legislative  v 
action.  Under  the  reorganization  act  of  1915  a  board  of  three 
people,  two  men  and  one  woman,  "well  qualified  by  experience 
and  education  to  act  as  censors,"  and  residents  and  citizens  of 
Pennsylvania,  are  appointed  by  the  Governor  for  terms  of  three 
years. 1  Pennsylvania  was  one  of  the  pioneers  in  this  field,  and 
the  work  of  the  Board  has  always  been  considered  well  worth 
studying  by  other  censors.  The  act  itself  has  furnished  the 
groundwork  for  the  majority  of  censorship  acts  which  have 
since  been  proposed  by  other  states  and  by  the  Federal  govern- 
ment. 

The   second   slate   to   introduce   state  censorship  wa^C^iiio*,  ^ 
which  on  April  16,  1913,  passed  the  law  creating  the  Board  of 
Censors  which  consisted  of  three  persons,   appointed  by  the 
Industrial   Commission,   with   the  approval   of   the  Governor, 
for  terms  of  three  years.  *     It  is  worthy  of  mention  that  this     • 
board,  the  second  of  its  kind  in  the  country,  is  reported  to  have 
been  originated  and  backed  by  a  number  of  motion  picture  men 
of  the  state. 

1  Pennsylvania  State  Board  of  Censors,  "Rules  and  Standards,"  Harris- 
burg,  Pa.,  1918. 

2  Cannon,  Lucius  H.,  op.  cit.  p.  132  ff. 


66  MOTION  PICTURES 

James  M.  Cox,  who  was  governor  of  Ohio  in  1913,  and  who 
strongly  supported  the  censorship  bill,  gave  his  support  to  it 
because  he  desired  to  protect  the  children  and  young  people  of 
his  state.  This  seems  to  have  been  the  general  attitude  of  the 
time,  and  presents  a  parallel  to  several  other  lines  of  development 
of  social  reforms.  In  the  development  of  the  human  and  scientific 
treatment  of  criminals  it  was  the  children  who  first  attracted 
attention  to  existing  evils  in  the  penal  system  of  Europe  due  to 
the  fact  that  they  were  naturally  more  readily  objects  of  sym- 
pathy than  adult  offenders,  and  the  fact  that  it  was  more  readily 
observable  that  the  environment  into  which  they  were  thrust 
could  not  help  but  shape  their  lives  than  it  was  in  the  case  of 
adults.  The  same  is  true  in  the  case  of  the  treatment  of  the 
mentally  defective  and  of  the  poor.  Even  today  the  cause  of 
children  needing  assistance  is  much  more  easily  pled  than  that  of 
adults,  though  the  adults  might  be  in  much  greater  distress. 
We  see  here  the  results  of  the  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  free  will  as 
opposed  to  that  of  determinism,  which,  while  still  widely  believed 
in  so  far  as  adults  are  concerned,  has  been  doubted  for  many 
centuries  in  its  application  to  the  immature. 

Slowly  but  steadily  censorship  officials  are  breaking  away 
from  the  idea  that  they  are  working  for  the  benefit  of  children 
only,  or  for  any  other  class  of  audience.  The  interested  public 
is  no  longer  basing  its  arguments  for  censorship  solely  on  the 
plea  that  the  children  of  the  nation  must  be  guarded.  While  the 
form  of  the  laws  passed  since  that  of  Ohio  has  changed  but  little, 
the  emphasis  in  their  administration  and  the  reasons  advanced 
in  their  support  are  undergoing  fundamental  changes,  although 
little  actual  progress  has  as  yet  been  made  since  the  Ohio  act  of 
1913. 

Under  both  the  original  Ohio  censorship  act  and  the  amend- 
ment which  became  effective  August  27,  1915,  the  Industrial 
Commission  of  that  state  controlled  the  board  of  censors,  through 
its  power  of  appointment  and  supervision,  specifically  granted 
by  the  act.  This  authority  extended  down  to  such  things  as  the 
providing  of  offices  and  equipment  necessary  for  the  carrying 
out  of  the  act,  and  the  fact  that  the  secretary  of  the  Industrial 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  67 

Commission  acted  also  as  secretary  of  the  board.  On  July  1, 1921, 
however,  Governor  Davis'  Reorganization  Bill  abolished  the 
Ohio  Board  of  Censors  and  all  its  powers  and  duties  were  trans- 
ferred to  the  Division  of  Film  Censorship  under  the  Department 
of  Education.  This  again  emphasizes  the  idea  of  child  saving 
which  played  an  all-important  part  in  the  establishment  of  the 
theory  of  censorship  in  the  minds  of  those  who  have  been 
interested  in  the  work. 

The  first  censorship  bill  in  Kansaswas  passed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture in  19 14. .and  provided  a^  system  of  examination,  approval 
and  regulation  of  motion  picture  films.  In  1917  the  legislature 
created  a  board  of  three  people,  "resident  citizens  of  Kansas, 
well  qualified  by  education  and  experience  to  act  as  censors," 
for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the  showing  of  films.  The  full 
term  of  service  for  members  of  this  board  was,  as  in  the  case  of 
Ohio,  three  years. J  This  board  is  the  one  functioning  in  Kansas 
at  the  present  time,  though  a  slight  modification  of  one  of  the 
financial  provisions  of  the  act  of  1917  was  made  in  1919  for  the 
purpose  of  making  the  board  self-supporting. 

Thp  Maryjjyjfl  hoard  of  censors  was  created  in  191 6^  and  also  ^T5* 
consists  of  three  members  serving  for  three  years.  They  are 
appointed  by  the  governor  "with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
senate,  and  the  provision  is  made  that  one  of  the  three  shall  be  a 
member  of  the  party  which  polled  the  second  highest  vote  at  the 
last  general  election  prior  to  their  appointment. 2  This  latter 
provision  is  important  in  its  implications  that  the  office  of 
censor,  which  is  a  technical  position  and  requires  considerable 
training  and  soundness  of  judgment,  is  one  of  the  spoils  of  war. 

New  York,  the  fifth  staj;e  to  have  legalized  censorship,  has 
but  recently  joined  the  first  four.  JOfflida  should  possibly  be 
included  among  the  states  which  have  censorship  of  motion 
pictures,  but  since  the  chief  duty  of  the  Florida  officials  is  to 
enforce  the  decisions  of  the  National  Board  of  Review  it  has 
seemed  best  not  to  discuss  the  system  of  that  state  here  in  view 

1  Kansas  State  Board  of  Review,  Annual  Report  of,  Topeka,  1920,  p.  10  ff. 

2  Cannon,  Lucius  H.,  op.  cit.  p.  120  ff. 


68  MOTION  PICTURES 

of  the  fact  that  the  National  Board  has  already  been  analyzed 
and  a  further  discussion  would  add  little  to  the  value  of  our  work. 
In  spite  of  a  hot  fight  put  up  by  the  motion  picture  interests,  in 
New  York  State  a  censorship  law  very  similar  to  those  in  ex- 
istence in  other  states  was  passed  by  the  legislature  and  signed 
by  Governor  Miller. l  Virginia  in  March,  1922,  also  adopted 
state  censorship  of  motion  pictures,  using  a  type  of  board  simi- 
lar to  those  in  the  other  states  mentioned. 

It  would  seem  that  since  only  six  states  out  of  the  forty-eight 
in  the  United  States  of  America  have  legalized  censorship,  and 
that  since  the  legislation  on  the  subject  in  these  states  has  all 
been  passed  within  the  last  ten  or  fifteen  years,  that  censorship 
has  not  yet  had  a  trial  by  which  it  would  be  fair  to  judge  its 
value.  This  is  not  the  case,  for  censorship  is  neither  so  new  nor 
so  narrowly  restricted  as  it  would  seem  to  be  at  first  glance,  nor 
has  it  been  without  valuable  results  in  the  states  in  which  it 
has  been  tried. 

England  has  had  an  effective  form  of  censorship  of  the  theatre 
for  almost  two  centuries.  This  was  extended  to  motion  pictures 
as  the  motion  picture  industry  expanded,  and  it  is  indicative 
of  the  fact  that  it  has  not  failed  in  England  that  the  results 
of  the  investigation  of  the  Cinema  Commission  of  Inquiry 
which  was  instituted  by  the  National  Council  of  Public 
Morals  in  Great  Britain  showed  a  balance  of  evidence  in  favor 
of  the  continuation  of  motion  picture  censorship. 2  The 
Cinema  Commission  was  very  careful  in  its  investigation  to 

1  Laws  of  New  York,  Chapter  715,  "An  act  to  regulate  the  exhibition  of 
motion  pictures,  etc.,"  became  a  law  May  14,  1921. 

2  England  has  had  censorship  of  theatres  of  all  kinds  since  1727.  There 
have  been  four  Parliamentary  investigations  of  censorship,  in  1853,  1866, 
1892  and  1909,  none  of  which  seem  to  have  disclosed  any  facts  justifying  its 
abolition,  for  complete  censorship  of  all  theatres  is  still  in  effect.     Hearings 
before  the  Committee   on   Education,    House    of    Representatives,    January 
15-19,  p.  157. 

For  a  discussion  of  the  development  of  motion  pictures  and  censorship  in 
England,  see  the  Times,  London,  February  21,  1922,  Supplement,  pp.  V  to 
XVI. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  69 

gather  all  varieties  of  evidence  on  the  different  social  aspects 
of  the  industry,  and  its  report  today  stands  as  one  of  the  most 
thorough  of  its  kind.  It  is  without  doubt  the  best  governmental 
investigation  of  the  effects  of  motion  pictures  ever  completed, 
and  will  probably  remain  such  for  a  long  time.  It  is  regretable 
that  nothing  has  been  undertaken  in  this  country  that  approaches 
it  in  scope  or  value,  though  the  United  States  is  the  leading 
nation  in  the  field  of  motion  picture  production  and  exhibition. 
Germany  had  motion  picture  censorship  before  the  World 
War,  dropped  it  for  a  time,  and  was  recently  compelled  to  go 
back  to  censorship  by  the  gross  violations  of  the  standards  of 
decency  by  producers  who  were  attempting  to  "give  the  public 
what  it  wanted."  Japan  also  has  a  national  censorship  system 
which  has  not  been  unsuccessful. l  Numerous  other  govern- 
mental units  have  legalized  previewing  of  motion  pictures 
The  Lieut.-Governors-in-Council  in  Alberta,  British  Columbia, 
Manitoba,  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  Ontario,  Quebec  and 
Saskatchewan  have  power  to  appoint  either  censors  or  boards 
of  censorship  with  power  to  permit  or  prohibit  the  exhibition  of 
any  film  in  their  respective  provinces.  Section  1626  of  the 
ordinances  of  the  Chicago  City  Council,  as  amended  May  24, 
1915,  prohibits  the  circulation  of  any  motion  picture  film  unless 
a  permit  shall  previously  have  been  obtained  from  the  superin- 
tendent of  police  of  the  city.  Examples  of  this  nature 
might  be  greatly  multiplied,  but  no  case  could  be  cited 
where  after  censorship  had  been  given  a  fair  trial  it 
was  shown  to  be  a  failure  and  eliminated.  It  is  remark- 
able that  in  spite  of  the  sincere  and  expensive  agitation  on  the 

'"This  Board"  (the  Japanese  Board  of  Censorship  of  motion  pictures) 
"belongs  to  the  police  department  of  every  prefecture  in  Japan  where  one 
or  two  men  can  accept  or  reject  any  picture  they  wish.  This  Board  is  under 
the  police  department  functioning  under  each  local  government.  It  is  a 
part,  however,  of  the  Imperial  Interior  Department.  It  regulates,  both  on 
the  administrative  and  judicial  sides,  the  producer,  the  exhibitor,  the  audience 
and  others  connected  with  motion  pictures  as  well  as  the  films  by  inspection." 
The  Bulletin  of  the  Affiliated  Committees  for  Better  Films,  Vol.  IV,  No.  5, 
May,  1920. 


70  MOTION  PICTURES 

part  of  the  industry  to  get  rid  of  what  they  believe  to  be  the 
curse  of  their  business,  not  one  censorship  victory  of  any  impor- 
tance, either  in  the  courts  or  in  the  balloting  by  the  people,  has 
been  placed  to  their  credit.  The  extent  of  the  battle  for  censor- 
ship in  this  country  may  be  judged  by  the  statement  made  in 
Wid's  Year  Book  for  1920  to  the  effect  that  the  Censorship 
Committee  of  the  National  Association  of  the  Motion  Picture 
Industry  would  fight  censorship  in  thirty-six  states  during  the 
winter  of  1921.  This  in  itself  is  an  indication  of  the  hold  which 
the  idea  of  state  censorship  has  on  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  It  may  be  said  without  fear  of  serious  contradiction 
that  censorship  has  not  grown  more  rapidly  than  the  industry 
itself,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  called  a  mushroom  growth 
by  the  industry,  nor  can  it  be  said  to  be  a  failure  in 
view  of  its  rapid  gain  in  popularity,  unless  facts  are  produced 
to  show  that  it  has  seriously  injured  the  industry  without  cor- 
respondingly greater  benefits  to  the  public. 

Realizing,  then,  that  censorship  is  not  a  passing  phenomenon, 
and  that  state  censorship  is  one  of  its  most  important  Jorms,  it 
is  advisable  to  consider  the  mechanical  details  thereof  as  pro- 
vided by  legislative  enactments.  The  usual  number  of  members 
of  state  censorship  boards  is  three,  the  only  exception  to  this 
rule  being  Ohio,  and  even  in  this  case  there  are  two  assistants  to 
the  chief  of  the  Division  of  Film  Censorship  of  the  Department 
of  Education.  Before  the  Reorganization  Bill  of  July  1,  1921, 
there  were  also  three  members  of  the  Ohio  board  of  censors. 
Appointment  to  office  is  by  the  governor  of  the  state,  with  or 
without  the  consent  and  advice  of  the  senate,  the  appointment 
usually  being  for  a  term  of  three  years.  Appointees  are  sup- 
posed to  be  qualified  by  education  and  experience  to  fulfill  the 
duties  attendant  upon  their  office.  All  films  must  be  submitted 
to  the  board  for  approval  before  being  exhibited  within  the 
territory  of  the  state.  The  board  is  given  general  instructions 
to  approve  films  which  are  educational  or  afford  harmless 
amusement,  and  is  to  disapprove  all  that  are  harmful,  immoral, 
sacrilegious,  indecent,  or  likely  to  stir  up  race  or  class  hatred. 
Films  may  be  disapproved  in  whole  or  in  part  for  violations  of 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  71 

the  above  standards  in  action  or  in  theme.  Recourse  may  be 
had  by  the  producer  to  the  courts  of  the  state  in  case  it  is  his 
belief  that  the  rejection  of  his  film  was  without  adequate  reason. 
Violations  of  the  rules  and  decisions  of  the  boards  of  censors  are 
punished  by  fines  of  from  a  few  dollars  on  up  to  a  few  hundred. 
Jail  sentences  are  also  possible  in  a  number  of  cases,  but  this 
amounts  to  little  more  than  a  possibility  in  actual  practice. 
This,  in  bare  outline,  includes  the  important  common  features 
of  the  existing  state  censorship  acts,  as  provided  by  law.  It 
does  not,  however,  tell  the  entire  story. 

The  arguments  against  censorship  are,  as  is  to  be  expected, 
best  stated  by  officials  of  the  industry,  though  there  are  many 
entirely  disinterested  people  who  are  opposed  to  censorship  on 
principle.  Their  ideas,  however,  have  been  adopted  by  the 
industry  and  need  not  be  discussed  separately. 

Possibly  the  first  argument  advanced  against  censorship  was 
the  one  that  censorship  of  motion  pictures  constitutes  a  violation 
of  the  inalienable  principle  of  freedom  of  speech  The  Pennsyl- 
vania act  of  Assembly  of  June  19,  1911,  creating  a  board  of 
censors  was  promptly  challenged  on  grounds  of  unconstitutional- 
ly. The  final  decision  in  this  case,  as  in  every  other  case  based 
on  similar  grounds,  was  in  favor  of  the  principle  of  previewing 
censorship. 

In  the  case  of  Jake  Block,  Nathan  Wolf,  et  al.f  vs.  The  City 
of  Chicago,  23*9  Illinois  Supreme  Court  Reports,  page  251,  the 
legality  of  a  city  censorship  was  upheld  by  the  court  in  an 
opinion  which  maintained  the  following  principles: 

"  (1)  The  City  has  power  to  regulate  the  motion  picture  busi- 
ness; 

"(2)  That  an  ordinance  passed  under  express  powers  cannot  be 
held  void  or  unreasonable; 

"(3)  That  the  ordinance  is  not  invalid  because  the  Chief  of 
Police  is  to  determine  whether  the  pictures  are  obscene  or 
immoral ; 


72 


MOTION  PICTURES 


'(4)  That  the  ordinance  prohibiting  the  exhibition  of  immoral, 
or  obscene  pictures  is  not  invalid  because  it  fixes  no  definite 
or  certain  standard; 

"(5)  That  a  picture  may  be  immoral,  although  it  illustrates 
scenes  connected  with  history;  and 

"  (6)  That  a  person  is  not  deprived  of  his  constitutional  rights 
without  due  process  of  law  when  not  permitted  to  show  a 
picture  that  violates  the  provisions  of  the  ordinance."  l 

The  decision  of  the  Illinois  Supreme  Court  which  embodies 
these  principles  in  accordance  with  the  general  legal  opinion 
throughout  the  United  States,  and  the  positions  taken  by  the 
court,  may  be  considered  as  typical  of  the  legal  views  on  the 
question  raised. 

Two  cases  were  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  and  decisions  were  handed  down  by  that  court  during 

e  October  term  of  1915.  These  were  the  case  of  the  Mutual 
Film  Corporation  vs.  the  Ohio  Industrial  Commission,  236  U.  S. 
Supreme  Court  Reports,  pp.  240  to  248,  and  the  case  of  the 
Mutual  Film  Corporation  vs.  George  H.  Hodge,  Governor  of  Kansas, 
236  U.  S.  Supreme  Court  Reports,  p.  257.  Both  cases  were 
argued  on  the  same  grounds,  namely,  that  the  censorship  statute 
in  question  imposed  an  unlawful  burden  on  interstate  commerce ; 
that  it  violated  the  principle  of  freedom  of  speech  and  publica- 
tion; and  that  it  attempted  to  delegate  legislative  power  to 
censors.  Mr.  Justice  McKenna  rendered  the  decision,  and 
upheld  the  validity  of  both  the  Ohio  and  the  Kansas  censorship  act. 
Much  of  his  decision  in  the  Ohio  case  is  included  in  a  footnote, 
which  follows,  and  in  Appendix  F,  for  the  reason  that  he  has  care- 
fully discussed  the  points  in  question,  and  that,  although  his  stand 
was  definitely  against  the  allegations  of  the  Mutual  Film  Cor- 
poration on  all  points  of  constitutionality  which  were  raised, 
the  opponents  of  censorship  still  continue  to  argue  the  case  with 
statements  concerning  the  limitation  of  the  right  of  freedom  of 
speech  and  of  the  press,  and  the  deprivation  of  property  without 


1  Chicago  Motion  Picture  Commission,  Report,  September,  1920,  p.  12. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  73 

due  process  of  law.  >    Those  phrases  have  long  been  recognized 

1  "Where  provisions  for  censorship  of  moving  pictures  relate  only  to  films 
intended  for  exhibition  within  the  State  and  they  are  distributed  to  persons 
within  the  State  for  exhibition,  there  is  no  burden  imposed  on  interstate 
commerce. 

"The  doctrine  of  original  package  does  not  extend  to  moving  picture  films 
transported,  delivered  and  used  as  shown  in  the  record  in  this  case,  although 
manufactured  in,  and  brought  from,  another  State. 

"  Moving  picture  films  brought  from  another  State  to  be  rented  or  sold  by 
the  consignee  to  exhibitors,  are  in  consumption  and  mingled  as  much  as  from 
their  nature  they  can  be  with  other  property  of  the  State  and  subject  to  its 
otherwise  valid  police  regulation,  even  before  the  consignee  delivers  to  the 
exhibitor. 

"The  judicial  sense,  supporting  the  common  sense  of  this  country,  sustains 
the  exercise  of  the  police  power  of  regulation  of  moving  picture  exhibitions. 

"The  exhibition  of  moving  pictures  is  a  business,  pure  and  simple,  originated 
and  conducted  for  profit  like  other  spectacles,  and  not  to  be  regarded  as  part 
of  the  press  of  the  country  or  as  organs  of  public  opinion  within  the  meaning  of 
freedom  of  speech  and  publication  guaranteed  by  the  constitution  of  Ohio. 

"This  court  will  not  anticipate  the  decision  of  the  state  court  as  to  the 
application  of  a  police  statute  of  the  State  to  a  state  of  facts  not  involved  in 
the  record  of  the  case  before  it.  Quaere,  whether  moving  pictures  exhibited  in 
places  other  than  places  of  amusement  should  fall  within  the  provisions  of  the 
censorship  statute  of  Ohio. 

"  While  administration  and  legislation  are  distinct  powers  and  the  line  that 
separates  their  exercise  is  not  easily  defined,  the  legislature  must  declare  the 
policy  of  the  law  and  fix  the  legal  principles  to  control  in  given  cases,  and  an 
administrative  body  may  be  clothed  with  power  to  ascertain  facts  and  con- 
ditions to  which  such  policy  and  principles  apply. 

"It  is  impossible  to  exactly  specify  such  application  in  every  instance,  and 
the  general  terms  of  censorship,  while  furnishing  no  exact  standard  of  require- 
ments may  get  precision  from  the  sense  and  experience  of  men  and  become 
certain  and  useful  guides  in  reasoning  and  conduct 

"The  moving  picture  censorship  act  of  Ohio  of  1915,  is  not  in  violation  of 
the  Federal  Constitution  or  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  either  as 
depriving  the  owners  of  moving  pictures  of  their  property  without  due  process 
of  law  or  as  a  burden  on  interstate  commerce,  or  as  abridging  freedom  and 
liberty  of  speech  and  opinion,  or  as  delegating  legislative  authority  to  adminis- 
trative officers." 

Mutual  Film  Corporation  vs.  Industrial  Commission  of  Ohio,  256  United 
States  Supreme  Court  Reports,  p.  230. 


74  MOTION  PICTURES 

to  have  excellent  value  as  slogans,  and  a  group  of  court  decisions, 
including  two  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  will  not 
find  it  easy  to  drive  them  out  of  use. x 

Another  frequently  used  argument  against  censorship  is  the 
statement  that  it  is  unnecessary. 2  It  is  unnecessary,  it  is 
claimed,  first,  because  pictures  shown  contain  little  that  could 
be  harmful  to  the  community.  The  amount  of  harmful  material 
they  actually  contain  may  be  judged  by  the  fact  that  as  has  been 
previously  mentioned,  no  important  survey  of  the  contents  of 
motion  pictures  has  failed  to  find  a  considerable  proportion  of 
American  motion  pictures  to  contain  socially  undesirable  ele- 
ments. A  better  grounded  reason  for  the  lack  of  necessity  for 
censorship  is  the  belief  that  there  are  other  more  effective  or  less 
objectionable  ways  of  accomplishing  the  same  results. 
J  Public  opinion,  for  example,  will  in  the  long  run  undoubtedly 
[  have  an  effect  in  the  process  of  eliminating  the  socially  unde- 

'  l  The  United  States  Supreme  Court  decided  that  compulsory  previewing 
of  motion  pictures  was  constitutional  in  1915.  (See  Appendix  F  for  de- 
tails of  this  decision.)  The  following  quotation  taken  from  a  pamphlet  issued 
in  opposition  to  state  censorship  since  that  year,  but  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  affected  by  the  Supreme  Court  decisions. 

"The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  those  of  the  several  states 
guarantee  the  freedom  of  speech  and  the  press.  Motion  pictures  have  arisen 
since  the  framing  of  the  constitutions,  but  they  are  obviously  a  means  whereby 
opinions  are  expressed,  and  as  such  they  are  entitled  to  the  same  right  of 
liberty  as  is  accorded  speech  and  press."  A  Garden  of  American  Motion 
Pictures,  published  by  the  National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures, 
January,  1920,  p.  24. 

2  The  following  telegram  opposing  the  adoption  of  House  of  Representa- 
tive Bill  456  is  typical  of  much  of  the  opposition  to  legalized  censorship  and 
assumes  great  significance  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  motion  picture 
mentioned  in  it  was  one  which  many  serious  and  responsible  citizens  and 
officials  of  this  country  believed  likely  to  cause  race  difficulties.  It  was  for 
this  reason  that  it  was  censored  in  many  parts  of  the  United  States.  The 
telegram,  which  is  apparently  intended  as  a  serious  argument  against  censor- 
ship in  general  and  of  one  picture  in  particular,  pays  no  attention  whatever 
to  the  point  at  issue,  that  of  public  safety. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  75 

sirable.  In  support  of  this  method  of  improving  the  standards 
of  the  industry  is  offered  the  admitted  change  which  has  come 
about  in  the  type  of  pictures  which  are  being  exhibited.  The 
wild  west  picture  is  a  thing  of  the  past,  so  far  as  the  better  houses 
are  concerned,  though  the  old-time  thriller  is  still  being  shown 
in  many  of  the  cheaper  theatres.  Similarly,  the  "vamp"  is  no 
longer  the  popular  favorite  in  screen  plays  that  she  was  but 
a  few  years  ago.  Other  examples  could  readily  be  shown  of  the 
trend  away  from  the  more  crude  appeals  to  the  emotions.  The 
leading  pictures  of  the  past  year  have  been  sensual,  elaborate 

"New  York,  N.  Y. 
"Hon.  James  E.  Martine, 

United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

"  Censorship  of  motion  pictures  is  the  most  dangerous  attack  on  American 
liberty  since  the  foundation  of  the  Republic.     The  motion  picture  is  a  process 
of  recording  thought  on  yellow  parchment  without  the  use  of  printer's  ink, 
and  is  as  great  an  advance  on  printing  as  Guttenberg's  invention  was  over  the 
quill  and  pen.     The  printing  press  revolutionized  the  world  by  bringing 
knowledge  within  the  reach  of  hundreds  of  millions.     To  strangle  this  great 
art  in  its  infancy  will  be  a  crime  against  humanity.     Free  speech  is  the  founda- 
tion of  our  Republic.     There  is  no  reason  for  censorship.     The  motion  picture 
show  is  now  cleaner  than  the  spoken  drama  or  the  press.     The  police  powersf  • 
of  the  State  are  already  ample.     Any  citizen  can  close  a  theatre  within  an! 
hour  if  the  laws  of  morality  are  violated.    A  censorship  of  opinion  is  the  aimj    « 
of  our  enemies.     Our  fathers  fled  the  Old  World  to  escape  this  and  founded] 
the  Republic  to  free  the  human  mind  from  shackles.     Shall  we  go  back  to  thd 
dark  ages?     I  first  preached  the  Clansman  as  a  sermon.     No  censor  daredi 
to  silence  my  pulpit.     I  turned  my  sermon  into  a  lecture  and  delivered  it  V 
from  Maine  to  California  without  license.     I  turned  the  lecture  into  a  novel  I 
and  no  censor  has  yet  stopped  the  press  of  Doubleday,  Page  &  Co.     I  turned    } 
the  novel  into  a  spoken  play,  and  no  censor  has  dared  to  interfere.      I  turned 
the  play  into  a  motion  picture,  and  it  has  cost  me  $75,000  in  lawyers'  fees    ; 
to  fight  the  local  censors  the  first  ten  months.     This  condition  of  affairs  is 
infamous.     It  is  the  immediate   duty  of   Congress  to  reffirm   the  principle/ 
of  free  speech  in  America  and  abolish  all  censors. 

(Signed)  THOMAS  DIXON." 

Hearings  before   the   Committee   on   Educatoin,  House  of  Representatives, 
January  13-19,  1916,  p.  236. 


76  MOTION  PICTURES 

portrayals  of  Oriental  life.     A  third  type  of  picture  can  be  seen 

to  be  gathering  popularity,  the  picture  which  is  based  on  a  story 

of  known  merit,  written  by  authors  of  literary  ability,  played  by 

actors  who  have  acting  ability.     It  is  not  difficult  to  see  how 

this  change  has  been  brought  about  by  the  censorship  power  of 

public  opinion,  but  public  opinion  by  itself,  unsupported  by 

some  authorities  who  will  review  all  plays,  and  not  only  those 

shown  in  the  convenient  theatres  of  a  respectable  nature,  cannot 

,  reach  half  of  the  productions  that  are  being  reached  by  the 

/  Pennsylvania  system.     It  is  the  fraction  that  public  opinion 

*  cannot  reach  that  needs  attention. 

In  the  third  place,  state  censorship  is  said  to  be  unnecessary 
because  there  already  exist  officials  with  all  the  requisite  legal 
authority  to  eliminate  the  obscene  and  immoral  pictures.  This 
point  has  already  been  discussed  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that 
although  there  seems  to  be  little  wrong  with  the  theory  involved, 
it  has  not  proved  satisfactory  in  practice. 

Again,  it  is  the  claim  of  the  National  Board,  for  example, 
that  parents  are  in  duty  bound  to  supervise  the  recreation  of 
their  children  and  to  see  to  it  that  only  the  better  type  of  picture 
is  patronized.     The  cry  that  the  United  States  is  becoming  too 
/  paternalistic  has  been  raised,  and  the  motion  picture  interests 
•'  have  seized  with  joy  on  this  anti-censorship  slogan,  which  seems 
/   to  be  especially  powerful  at  the  present  time.    The  opponents 
j    of  motion  picture  censorship  forget  that  the  same  cry  of  paternal- 
ism was  raised  against  compulsory  education  at  its  inception. 
They  forget  that  the    "let  alone"    policy  has  been  abandoned 
after  repeated  and  successful  trials  of  an  opposite  policy  by  our 
government  in  cases  where  the  public  welfare  was  concerned. 
The  possible  anti-social  effects  of  motion  pictures  are  such  as  to 
justify  governmental  interference  for  the  welfare  of  the  nation, 
and  until  the  facts  show  that  clean  pictures  alone  will  be  pro- 
duced and  exhibited  without  governmental  regulation  the  laws 
of  the  nation  must  be  "paternalistic".     While  it  is  conceivable 
that  99  per  cent,  of  the  industry  may  reach  that  stage  when  they 
will  give  the  public  only  that  which  is  in  accord  with  the  accepted 
social  standards,   it  would  be  an   unusual  situation  were  the 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION 


77 


entire  trade  to  refrain  from  wrongfully  capitalizing  the  human  / 
emotions  of  its  patrons  if  free  from  legal  supervision.     We  may 
assume  that  most  business  organizations  are  as  interested  in  the 
public  welfare  as  the  motion  picture  business,  yet  the  Federal   ' 
Trade  Commission  is  still  functioning  to  good  effect,  and  without 
too  much  hardship  on  the  better  groups  under  their  supervision. 

Finally,  state  censorship  is  claimed  to  be  unnecessary  for  the 
reason  that  the  necessary  censoring  could  be  done  more  efficiently 
by  the  producers  themselves  at  the  source.  The  most  practical 
way  of  doing  this  which  has  as  yet  been  evolved  is  that  of  volun- 
tary co-operation  with  the  public  through  the  National  Board  of 
Review  in  New  York  City.  As  has  been  previously  shown, 
mere  recommendation  of  eliminations  without  power  of  com- 
pelling compliance  is  at  best  an  ineffective  weapon  to  use  against 
an  institution  so  widespread  and  powerful  as  motion  pictures. 

The  remaining  arguments  against  legal  censorship  are  that  it 
is  impossible  for  any  legally  constituted  body  to  decide  what 
the  people  should  and  what  they  should  not  see;  that  censorship 
ruins  the  plays;  that  censorship  is  for  the  protection  of  children, 
and  should  not  apply  to  all  plays,  since  adults  also  have  rights; 
that  censorship  officials  have  proved  incompetent  in  the  past, 
and  therefore  always  will;  and  that  boards  of  censorship  are 
after  all  only  allowed  to  exist  because  they  furnish  sinecures  for 
the  friends  of  the  political  powers  that  be,  and  are  consequently 
a  source  of  graft.  These,  with  the  previously  mentioned  argu- 
ments, seem  to  be  the  most  important  evidences  which  have  been 
brought  forth  against  censorship  by  the  motion  picture  industry.  * 

1  The  National  Board  of  Review  in  its  campaign  for  "selection,  not  censor- 
•  ship"  as  the  solution  of  motion  picture  problems,  holds  that  censorship,  state 
and  federal,  has  been  rejected  for  the  following  reasons: 

"Censorship  is  an  invasion  of  consitutional  rights"  in  that  it  limits  freedom 

of  speech  and  the  press;  it  is  a  "defiance  of  democratic  principles"  because  it 

empowers  a  small  group  to  decide  what  the  people  may  see,  and  "takes  away 

'    from  local  authorities  who  are  elected  by  the  people  power  to  regulate  the 

•  -pictures  shown  in  their  own  communities";  it  is  a  failure  because  there  is 

no  hope  of  censors'  uniform  decisions,  as  has  been  shown  by  not  uncommon 

disagreements  between  existing  censors;  it  is  undesirable  because  there  is  "nox 


I 


78  MOTION  PICTURES 

They  have  been  culled  from  a  large  number  of  articles  in  trade 
journals,  from  speeches  before  legislatures,  committees  of  inves- 
tigation, and  other  more  general  audiences  by  the  defenders  of 
freedom  of  production;  and  from  the  more  formal  arguments 
which  the  legal  advisors  of  the  industry  have  laid  before  the 
courts  and  voters  of  this  country.  It  would  be  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  in  the  case  where  a  bill  for  state  censorship  which 
had  passed  the  legislature  of  that  state  and  was  up  for  con- 
sideration by  the  voters  at  an  election  to  decide  whether  or  not 
it  should  go  into  effect,  the  briefs  for  and  against  the  bill  filed 
with  the  secretary  of  the  commonwealth  in  accordance  with  the 
law  would  contain  the  very  best  of  the  evidence  on  the  subject 
under  contest.  Such  a  bill  is  pending  in  Massachusetts  at  the 
present  time,  yet  the  arguments  on  both  sides  filed  with  the 
Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  are  given 
without  reference  to  supporting  facts,  and  in  many  cases  would 
be  difficult  of  proof. 

There  is  considerable  basis  for  the  statement  that  it  is  practi- 
cally impossible  for  any  legally  constituted  body  of  officials 
properly  to  decide  what  should  and  what  should  not  be  shown 
on  the  screen.  Opinions  will  vary,  especially  in  different  parts  of 
the  country.  They  will  even  vary  as  between  members  of  the 
same  board.  Examples  of  this  are  not  uncommon,  and  are  not 
infrequently  brought  forth  to  show  the  impracticability  of  any 
legal  censorship.  It  might  be  mentioned  that  it  is  not  altogether 
an  uncommon  occurrence  for  judges  of  the  highest  court  in  the 
United  States  to  disagree,  yet  the  court  is  still  functioning  in  a 
valuable  way.  While  boards  of  censors  do  have  differences  of 

popular  demand  for  censorship";  it  is  unjust  because  "Compared  with 
other  forms  of  dramatic  entertainment,  the  motion  picture  is  the  least  objec- 
tionable on  the  score  of  morals.  To  single  it  out  for  censorship,  therefore, 
is  on  the  face  of  it  indefensibly  unjust  and  stupid";  lastly,  "censorship  is  no 
solution  for  the  child  problem,"  because  it  cannot  eliminate  melodrama  or 
make  the  screen  a  "commendable  entertainment  for  children,"  and  in  the 
second  place,  "nobody  has  any  business  to  try  to  do  this." 

f'    National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures,  A  Garden  of  American 

I  Motion  Pictures,  January  1920,  p.  24. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  79 

opinion,  as  to  the  moral  value  of  individual  scenes  or  pictures, 
it  is  difference  not  in  the  fundamental  principles  involved,  but 
in  the  occasional  application  of  standards  which  have  been  shown 
to  be  generally  accepted.  These  differences  are  therefore  not 
such  as  to  render  the  boards  any  more  useless  than  differences  of 
opinion  of  the  members  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court 
render  that  court  useless.  They  are  differences  of  interpretation 
which  will  iron  themselves  out  as  such  questions  are  more  and 
more  freely  discussed.  It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that 
there  is  cause  for  dissatisfaction  in  so  far  as  these  differences  of 
interpretation  are  due  to  incompetency,  carelessness  and  wilful 
disregard  of  duty  for  personal  reasons. 

Many  plays  have  been  ruined  by  the  slashing  of  the  censors, 
with  an  attendant  loss  to  the  producers.  Much  of  the  slashing 
has  been  of  doubtful  value.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  elimina- 
tion of  scenes  in  which  Carmen  was  shown  smoking  was  necessary 
in  order  to  protect  minds  in  the  making.  There  are  innumerable 
other  equally  ludicrous  examples  of  narrow-minded  censorship 
by  officials  who  were  unfitted  for  the  positions  they  held.  But 
such  errors  are  a  small  part  of  the  work  done,  and  are  outweighed 
by  other  better  advised  acts. l  In  the  report  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Board  of  Censors  for  the  year  ending  November  30,  1918, 

1  Titles  of  motion  picture  plays,  like  titles  of  books  and  legitimate  drama, 
are  not  always  truly  representative  of  the  contents,  but  there  is  in  most 
cases  a  correlation  between  name  and  subject  matter.  Some  indication  of  the 
kind  of  picture  the  Pennsylvania  censors  eliminate  may  therefore  be  gained 
from  the  following  titles  of  subjects  disapproved  by  them.  This  list  is  taken 
at  random  from  a  complete  enumeration  of  disapproved  subjects,  and  is 
typical  of  the  entire  list. 

"The  Toreadors,"  "Traffic  in  Souls,"  "Traffickers  on  Soles,"  "Trapped  in 
the  Great  Metropolis, "  "The  Triumph  of  Venus,"  "Trooper  44,"  "True 
Love,  or  the  Mighty  Prince,"  "The  Truth  about  Twilight  Sleep,"  "Twi- 
light," "Twilight  Sleep,"  "The  Unborn,"  "Unfaithful,"  "The  Un- 
pardonable Sin,"  "Up  from  the  depths." 

The  list  of  which  these  titles  formed  a  part  was  one  of  over  three  hundred 
similar  titles  of  disapproved  subjects,  and  they  are  in  no  way  exceptional. 

List  of  Disapproved  Subjects,  Pennsylvania  State  Board  of  Censors,  1921. 


80  MOTION  PICTURES 

thirteen  appeals  are  listed  as  having  been  taken  from  decisions 
by  the  board  to  the  courts  of  the  state.  In  none  of  these  cases 
was  the  judgment  of  the  board  reversed.  These  appeals  cover 
the  period  from  August  1915  until  June  1918,  or  almost  three 
years,  yet  in  that  time,  in  spite  of  the  constant  efforts  to  show 
the  inefficiency  of  censorship,  the  courts  did  not  once  consider  the 
board  to  have  been  in  error,  according  to  the  report  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Board  of  Censors.  Immediately  upon  the  taking 
of  office  by  the  New  York  board,  a  storm  of  protest  against  its 
decisions  was  raised  by  the  industry.  Thus  far  no  decision  of 
the  New  York  board  has  been  reversed  by  the  New  York  Courts. 
Had  there  been  any  grave  cause  for  complaint  it  is  not  unreason- 
able to  assume  that  the  courts  would  have  recognized  it  in  their 
decisions. 

The  chairman  of  the  Kansas  board  of  censors  receives  an 
annual  salary  of  eighteen  hundred  dollars;  the  other  members 
receive  fifteen  hundred  dollars.  The  Pennsylvania  Act  of  1915 
provides  that  the  chairman  shall  receive  three  thousand  dollars, 
the  vice-chairman,  two  thousand,  five  hundred  dollars,  and  the 
secretary,  two  thousand,  four  hundred  dollars.  Under  the  Ohio 
act  of  1915  each  member  of  the  board  received  fifteen  hundred 
dollars.  The  pay  in  Maryland  was  fixed  by  the  legislature  at 
twenty-four  hundred  dollars.  These  are  in  sharp  contrast  to 
the  recent  New  York  statute,  which  fixes  the  remumeration  of 
each  commissioner  at  seven  thousand,  five  hundred  dollars. 
These  figures  furnish  an  explanation  of  some  of  the  things  that 
have  happened  in  the  various  states.  In  the  first  four  states 
named  above  it  has  been  impossible  to  get  men  of  first-class 
calibre  to  take  the  office  of  censor  unless,  as  has  notably  been  the 
case  in  two  or  three  instances,  some  person  of  ability  happened 
to  be  willing  to  sacrifice  money  and  time  in  order  to  be  able  to 
be  of  service.  In  New  York  State,  where  the  salaries  were 
adequate  it  turned  out  that  the  three  censorship  offices  were 
much  too  valuable  as  political  plums  to  waste  on  people  who 
were  not  politically  valuable  to  the  appointing  power,  and  the 
consequent  appointment  of  three  people  not  entirely  unknown 
politically  to  a  position  needing  men  and  women  of  "training  and 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  81 

education  fitting  them  for  the  duties  of  the  office"  was  not 
unexpected,  though  in  fairness  it  must  be  added  that  the  New 
York  Board  has  done  well  in  the  brief  time  it  has  been  func- 
tioning. 

The  claim  that  the  cost  of  censorship  is  too  great  a  burden  is 
hardly  worthy  of  consideration.  Censorship  boards  belong  to 
that  increasing  group  of  state  departments  which  are  self-sup- 
porting in  that  they  need  no  appropriations  from  the  state 
treasury  for  their  support.  Fees  of  from  one  to  three  dollars 
for  the  approval  of  each  reel  of  1,000  feet  of  film,  together  with 
fines  for  violations  of  censorship  regulations,  have  been  found  to 
be  sufficient  for  the  payment  of  the  salaries  and  incidental 
expenses  connected  with  the  carrying  out  of  censoring  duties. 
In  view  of  the  large  salaries  paid  to  stars,  the  large  rentals 
charged  for  films,  and  the  general  prosperity  of  the  industry,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  show  that  even  much  greater  charges  would 
materially  affect  its  welfare. 1  Most  of  the  protests  against 
censorship  are  founded  on  assumptions  or  facts  which  are  so 
weak  that  the  conclusions  drawn  from  them  are  of  little  value, 
and  the  claim  that  censorship  costs  are  in  excess  of  the  resultant 
value  is  possibly  the  worst  founded  of  all. 

1  The  general  arguments  against  censorship  are  so  well  known  that  they 
require  only  brief  comment  here.  More  detailed  information  may  be  ob- 
tained from  the  following  sources: 

Chicago  Motion  Picture  Commission,  Report  of,  September,  1920. 

New  York  State  Conference  of  Mayors,  Report  of  the  Special  Committee  on 
Motion  Pictures,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  February  24,  1920. 

General  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  General  Federation  Magazine, 
Vol.  XVIII,  No.  1,  January,  1919,  pp.  13  to  26  incl. 

House  of  Representatives,  Hearing  before  the  Committee  on  Education  on 
H.  R.  456,  January  13-19,  1916. 

National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures,  Objections  to  State  Cen- 
sorship of  Motion  Pictures,  January,  1920;  The  Case  Against  Federal 
Censorship  of  Motion  Pictures,  and  other  pamphlet  and  mimeographed 
material  on  the  subject  which  may  be  obtained  from  the  National  Board 
apparently  without  limit. 


82  MOTION  PICTURES 

IX 

SUMMARY 

Ii  is  unessential  that  any  evidence  be  advanced  to  show  that 
the  type  of  picture  seen  by  motion  picture  audiences  consisting 
of  millions  of  people  of  all  ages  and  conditions  influences  their 
thoughts  and  their  subsequent  activities.  The  belief  that  man's 
conduct  is  the  invariable  result  of  the  interaction  of  environment 
and  heredity  is  too  widely  accepted  today  to  require  any  addi- 
tional substantiating  material.  We  may  consider  the  principle 
an  established  fact  and  make  use  of  it  as  such  by  assuming 
without  a  mass  of  detailed  facts  as  proof  that  what  is  shown  on 
the  motion  picture  screen  will  have  a  character-molding  influence 
of  those  who  see  it. 

An  analysis  of  standards  of  human  conduct  has  been  made  in 
an  effort  to  discover  a  measure  whereby  to  judge  the  type  of 
picture  which  is  being  shown  in  American  motion  picture  theatres. 
It  was  found  that  there  existed  a  remarkable  unanimity  of 
opinion  among  all  interested  groups,  including  the  most  vigorous 
opponents  of  government  censorship,  concerning  conduct 
'Cvj/  believed  to  be  harmful  to  society.  The  origin  and  function  of 
moral  codes  both  lie  in  group  survival,  and  the  forbidden  acts 
are  determined  by  group  opinion  to  be  those  which  are  believed, 
'  correctly  or  otherwise,  to  be  detrimental  to  its  existence.  If  any 
civilized  society  is  agreed  on  certain  activities  as  being  worthy  of 
its  tabu  it  is  of  doubtful  importance  in  a  study  of  social  legisla- 
tion to  inquire  into  their  actual  survival  value.  In  the  case 
under  consideration  practical  agreement  has  been  found  to  exist 
among  those  concerned,  and  it  is  only  necessary  for  our  purposes 
to  see  to  what  extent,  if  at  all,  the  accepted  standards  are  being 
violated  in  motion  picture  plays. 

From  a  comparison  of  the  results  of  numerous  independent 
investigations  of  motion  pictures  within  recent  years  no  other 
conclusion  can  be  reached  than  that  many  violations  of  the 
acknowledged  desirable  social  standards  are  continually  being 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  83 

shown  on  the  screen  in  most  communities  without  any  penalty, 
legal  or  social,  being  inflicted  on  those  responsible  for  their 
exhibition.     An  estimate  placing  the  number  of  pictures  tending 
to  have  a  harmful  effect  on  motion  picture  patrons  at  20  per  cent.        \ 
does  not  seem  to  be  too  high  in  the  light  of  the  evidence  offered 
by  the  only  reliable  social  studies  available.     It  is  these  pictures    I 
which  necessitate  some  form  of  control. 1 

We  must  not,  however,  fall  into  two  common  errors,  errors  of 
extremist  reformers  who  have  neglected,  possibly  willfully,  to 
establish  scientific  foundations  for  their  recommendations.  It' 
seems  to  be  frequently  assumed  that  motion  picture  producers, 
exhibitors  and  actors  are  different  from  the  rest  of  us,  that  they 
are  largely  moral  degenerates  who  would  take  joy  in  perverting 
the  screen  by  sordid  pictures  even  though  there  were  no  financial 
gain  involved.  The  newspaper  gossip  of  drunkenness,  murders 
and  gay  life  among  the  members  of  the  industry  is  pointed  out 
as  evidence  of  this  moral  perversion,  and  sermons  have  been 
preached,  legislation  has  been  proposed,  not  against  the  few 
under  suspicion  but  against  the  entire  industry.  Such  reasoning 
is  of  course  entirely  fallacious  and  barely  worth  mentioning,  for 
only  a  small,  though  annoying  following  can  be  acquired  and 
held  through  the  spreading  of  such  unfounded  general  slander. 
That  the  motion  picture  people,  business  men,  directors  and 
actors,  are  neither  better  nor  worse  than  the  rest  of  the  popula- 
tion must  be  acknowledged  by  anyone  who  has  come  into  any 
considerable  contact  with  them,  and  would  not  need  space  here 
were  it  not  for  the  ever  present  fanatic.  To  call  attention  to 
this  error  is  sufficient  to  dispose  of  it. 

The  second  common  error  of  reformers  is  the  basing  of  decisions 
concerning  the  influence  of  motion  pictures  on  insufficient  or 

1  The  National  Board  of  Motion  Pictures  Review  is  probably  one  of  the 
most  oflf^ervaHve  bodies  which  pass  on  motion  pictures  with  regard  to  the 
number  of  eliminations  requested.  A  few  samples  of  their  eliminations, 
selected  at  random,  indicative  of  what  may  be  shown  in  42  states  of  the 
Union  without  legal  penalty,  are  quoted  in  Appendix  E. 


84  MOTION  PICTURES 

unscientific  evidence. 1  To  go  to  motion  picture  theatres  a 
few  times  and  then  absolve  or  condemn  all  productions  sounds 
foolish,  yet  too  often  that  is  exactly  what  is  done.  Considering 
the  present  size  of  the  industry  which  is  releasing  for  distribution 
to  exhibitors  over  fifteen  feature  pictures  and  any  number  of 
shorter  subjects  every  week  it  is  evident  that  no  one  man  is 
qualified  to  pass  judgment  unless  he  has  devoted  more  time  than 
the  ordinary  critic  to  the  study  of  the  situation.  He  must  rely 
on  what  has  been  found  by  such  investigations  as  have  been 
mentioned  in  a  previous  chapter.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
they  are  as  few  and  as  inaccessible  as  they  are.  These  investi- 
gations while  they  have  their  faults  are  a  relatively  safe  indica- 
tion of  the  trend  in  motion  pictures  if  they  are  properly  weighted 
with  reference  to  the  undesirable  peculiarities  which  every  report 
has  in  the  way  of  personal,  religious  or  sectional  bias,  unwise 
sampling,  and  the  like.  The  records  of  the  eliminations  of  legal 
boards  of  censorship  are  also  available  in  many  cases  and  furnish 
good  indication  of  the  undesirable  features  in  motion  pictures 
in  the  sections  which  do  not  have  censorship,  since  the  same 
pictures  are  shown  in  all  parts  of  the  country  with  comparatively 

1  An  example  of  the  type  of  investigation  the  value  of  which  is  considerably 
lowered  by  the  use  of  too  many  untrained,  unco-ordinated  apparently  randomly 
selected  investigators  whose  judgments  were  based  on  vague  and  possibly 
unfortunate  standards  of  conduct,  is  that  made  in  Portland,  Oregon,  in 
1914,  the  results  of  which  were  published  in  the  Reed  College  Record,  No.  16, 
September,  1914. 

An  equally  unsatisfactory  investigation  made  by  means  of  the  questionnaire 
method  by  one  of  the  leading  producers  of  the  country  has  just  been  completed. 
The  questionnaire  was  sent  broadcast  to  all  parts  of  the  world  where  American 
pictures  are  shown.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  people  engaged  in  literary 
work  are  overwhelmingly  opposed  to  censorship  yet  it  seems  that  an  impartial 
answer  to  the  question  "Do  picturegoers  make  a  more  efficient  censorship 
authority  than  a  politically  controlled  committee?"  was  asked.  It  is  to  be 
wondered  what  particular  qualification  newspaper  editors  have  for  answering 
the  question  "What  has  been  the  influence  of  the  motion  picture  on  home 
and  community  life  during  the  past  ten  years?"  See,  Moving  Picture  World, 
Vol.  LV,  No.  5,  April  1,  1922. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  85 

little  elimination  save  by  censors.  Inaccurate  observations  and 
unjustified  interpretations  are  important  causes  of  avoidable 
difficulties  between  the  factions  interested,  and  with  many 
sources  of  information  available  as  there  are  to  those  who  are 

willing  to  hunt,  such  errors  are  inexcusable. 

i  *  ft 

r  ^   .-<    t^fff 

Granting  that  mistakes  by  reformers  and  others  have  been 
numerous,  it  must  nevertheless  be  admitted  that  all  is  not  as  it  j^  ,.»' 
should  be  and  that  some  means  of  eliminating  a  relatively  infre- 
quent  though  important  type  of  picture  should  be  put  into  effect 
throughout  the  country.  One  of  the  most  glibly  offered  sugges- 
tions  is  that  education  is  the  only  sound  solution  to  the  problem. 
Parents,  for  example,  must  be  educated  so  that  they  will  be  the 
censors  for  their  children.  It  is  not  the  function,  say  the 
adherents  to  this  policy,  of  the  state  to  usurp  the  offices  of  par- 
ents, but  only  to  train  them  so  that  they  may  perform  their 
natural  duties  in  the  best  possible  way.  This  assumes  that 
censorship  is  for  children  only  and  that  the  present  difficulties  are 
not  of  such  importance  as  to  require  any  immediate  action, 
neither  of  which  assumptions  has  been  shown  to  be  accurate. 
It  is  education,  say  these  same  people,  that  must  raise  the 
standards  to  such  a  high  moral  plane  that  the  motion  picture 
industry  will  be  compelled  to  produce  only  clean  pictures  on 
account  of  the  general  boycotting  which  all  others  will  receive. 
Some  of  the  difficulties  with  this  program  are  that  this  again 
overlooks  the  immediate  problems,  that  the  pictures  are  them- 
selves a  part  of  our  educational  system  and  to  some  extent 
afford  exactly  the  wrong  type  of  education,  and  that  human 
ingenuity  .has  never  succeeded  is  entirely  eliminating  the  morally 
"submerged  tenth"  from  any  fair-sized  civilization.  Until  these 
objections  are  overcome  education  can  only  be  a  part,  though  a 
not  unimportant  part,  in  any  well  rounded  program  for  the 
social  regulation  of  motion  pictures. 


/ 
/ 

' 


Thejchurch  has  also  been  suggested  as  the  agency  by  means  of 
which  the  undesirable  motion  pictures  may  be  removed  from  our 


86  MOTION  PICTURES 

theatres. J  The  objections  which  apply  to  education  as  the 
sole  means  of  purification  also  apply  to  the  use  of  this  institution 
without  the  support  of  some  other  agency  for  the  handling  of 
the  stubborn  minority  which  cannot  be  reached  through  moral 
exhortation. 

.  Another  group  of  people  who  might  be  described  as  adherents 
/  to  the  theory  of  natural  law  believe  that  if  left  to  herself  nature 
will  work  out  her  own  salvation.  Public  opinion,  it  is  said,  will 
eventually  force  undesirable  pictures  out  of  the  market  without 
any  teleological  interference  by  reformers.  A  time  will  come 
when  if  the  pictures  of  today  are  detrimental  to  the  social  group 
they  will  by  the  very  nature  of  things  be  driven  out  without  any 
prohibitory  legislation.  While  there  is  an  appreciable  element 
of  truth  in  this  belief,  its  adherents  forget  that  it  is  largely 
through  the  efforts  of  objectors  to  things  as  they  are  that  they 
' :  are  changed  to  an  approximation  of  what  they  should  be.  It  is 
also  forgotten,  as  it  is  by  every  other  opponent  to  legal  control  of 
motion  pictures,  that  as  we  have  already  mentioned  several 
times,  we  cannot  hope  to  have  all  people  govern  their  activities 
in  accordance  with  the  needs  of  social  welfare  without  some 
means  of  compelling  the  small  fringe  of  outlaws  to  become  law 
abiding.  We  have  general  agreement  in  the  general  principle 
of  the  sanctity  of  human  life  but  policemen  are  needed  to  keep 
down  the  number  of  violations  of  the  principle  by  the  few  who 

1  The  publications  of  the  National  Board  of  Review  continually  stress  the 
strength  of  motion  pictures  in  the  fields  of  education,  religion  and  general 
training.  For  example,  see  the  Bulletin  of  the  Affiliated  Committees  for 
Better  Films,  Vol.  IV,  No.  8,  September  1920;  Vol.  II,  No.  9,  October,  1918; 
Vol.  V,  No.  7,  July,  1921;  Vol.  II,  No.  7,  July,  1918. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Women's  Alliance  has  attempted  to  handle  the 

f    motion  picture  problem,  and  it  has  met  with  considerable  success,  through  the 

formation  of  committees  of  representatives  of  churches,  schools,  clubs  and 

others,  including  the  managers  of  theatres  included  in  the  district  of  each 

^     committee,  and  through  co-operation  with  the  National  Board  of  Review,  is 

outlined  in  the  Social  Hygiene  Bulletin,  Vol.  VIII,  No.  6,  June  1921.     A 

summary  of  this  is  included  in  the  Journal  of  Criminal  Law  and  Criminology, 

Vol.  XII,  No.  2,  August  1921. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  87 

for  some  reason  are  not  willing  to  conform.  We  cannot  hope 
that  a  policy  of  non  interference  will  work  out  satisfactorily  any 
more  than  will  a  purely  educationsl  policy,  or  a  chucrh  guardian- 
ship of  morals  policy,  no  matter  how  desirable  in  the  abstract 
any  one  of  these  policies  would  be.  They  are  necessary  as  a 
part  of  a  constructive  program,  but  with  motion  pictures  and 
human  personality  as  they  are  today  some  negative  program  is 
also  required. 

The  National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  pictures  as  a  negative 
and  a  positive  agency  has  also  been  discussed,  as  have  some  of  the 
most  important  variations  of  legal  control.  It  has  been  found 
that  the  National  Board  has  not  been  successful  and  cannot 
succeed  in  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  created.  The  very 
change  in  its  emphasis  from  censorship  to  review  to  selection  is 
evidence  that  it  has  fallen  down  in  its  attempt  to  deal  with  the 
situation.  While  it  can  be  a  great  positive  influence  in  the  "1 
industry  through  its  selective  program,  it  is  evident  that  what  is 
needed  for  it  to  be  considered  the  only  necessary  agency  of 
control  is  some  power  to  compel  obedience.  The  state  alone  j 
has  that  power.  ~" 

It  would  seem  desirable  at  first  glance  to  have  uniform  control  ) 
of  motion  pictures  through  the  federal  government  throughout 
the  entire  United  States.  However  at  the  present  time  this 
would  be  inadvisable  due  to  the  differences  of  public  opinion  on 
the  principle  of  censorship  and  to  the  lack  of  existing  and  pro- 
posed feasible  means  for  recognizing  that  pictures  which  are 
passable  in  so  far  as  one  section  of  the  country  is  concerned  may  ' 
result  in  racial  trouble,  labor  difficulties  or  other  mob  violence 
when  shown  in  another  section.  Federal  censorship  legislation, 
or  uniform  state  legislation,  is  the  goal  towards  which  the  efforts 
of  those  who  have  the  welfare  of  the  nation  at  heart  should 
strive,  but  until  some  means  of  centralization  of  authority  and 
localization  of  administration  is  devised  a  federal  censorship  act 
would  be  unfortunate. 

Meanwhile,  the  local  units  of  government  must  be  relied 
upon  to  protect  the  community  against  the  outlaw  picture. 
There  are  in  all  states  and  cities  officials  who  have  the  authority 


88  MOTION  PICTURES 

to  prohibit  the  showing  of  lewd  and  immoral  pictures,  but  due  to 
pressure  of  other  duties  or  disinclination  to  interfere  in  a  field 
where  regulation  has  always  stirred  up  such  violent  reactions 
from  powerful  sources,  these  local  officials  have  not  acted  when 
they  were  not  compelled  to  do  so.  Whatever  the  cause, 
existing  public  officials,  chosen  without  specific  reference  to 
motion  picture  regulation,  have  not  been  successful  in  hand- 
ling the  motion  picture  problem  as  a  side  line  to  their  other 
work.  When  members  of  the  police  force,  for  example, 
have  been  specially  assigned  to  the  regulation  of  motion 
pictures,  a  considerable  degree  of  success  has  been  achieved, 
as  in  Chicago,  but  separate  state  censorship  boards,  not  so 
readily  accessible  to  all  theforces  which  all  too  frequently 
interfere  with  our  municipal  protective  officials,  have  achieved 
better  results,  not  only  because  they  are  less  subject  to  external 
pressure  but  also  because  the  state  is  a  much  better  administra- 
tive unit  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  industry  and  of  the  censor 
than  the  city.  Some  degree  of  unity  is  required,  and  since  we 
have  shown  the  United  States  to  be  too  large  to  be  included 
under  one  system  under  present  conditions,  and  since  there 
are  too  many  cities  of  varying  social  and  political  colors  for  any 
great  agreement  of  action  to  exist  if  each  were  to  have  a  separate 
board  of  censorship,  the  state  is  the  logical  choice  as  the  present 
regulative  unit. 

The  contentions  that  censorship  is  unconstitutional,  that  it 
violates  the  American  principle  of  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the 
press,  that  it  is  unjust  discrimination  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
theatres  are  not  similarly  censored,  that  it  is  expensive  to  the 
taxpayer  and  to  the  industry  beyond  its  value  to  the  nation, 
that  it  cannot  be  put  into  effect  on  account  of  the  lack  of  stand- 
ards whereby  to  judge,  and  that  it  has  failed  where  tried,  cannot 
be  said  to  be  supported  by  the  facts  in  the  case.  The  records  of 
the  four  state  boards  which  have  been  functioning  for  a  number 
of  years  if  studied  contain  sufficient  material  to  overthrow  these 
arguments.  Not  all  of  the  evidence  on  all  of  these  points  has 
been  included  in  this  treatise.  Space  would  not  permit.  Much 
more,  however,  has  been  considered  than  has  been  cited,  and 
there  has  been  a  conscientious  attempt  to  present  a  fair  view  of 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  89 

the  field.  The  evidence  has  been  carefully  weighed,  and  the 
opponents  of  legal  censorship  have  been  given  the  benefit  of  every 
doubt.  The  only  possible  conclusion  is  that  legal  censorship  is 
justified  by  conditions  in  the  motion  picture  industry  which  have 
been  unavoidable,  and  that  for  many  years  to  come  the  most 
desirable  form  of  censorship  will  be  that  which  is  under 
direct  state  control. 


90 


MOTION  PICTURES 


APPENDIXES 


APPENDIX  A 


By  a  compilation  made  by  the  Morosco  interests,  and  printed 
in  the  Philadelphia  Evening  Ledger,  September  9,  1921,  the 
number  of  motion  picture  theatres  in  the  country  was  found  to 
be  17,824,  distributed  by  cities  and  states  as  follows: 

IN  TWENTY-NINE  CHIEF   CITIES 


Greater  New  York 604 

Chicago 345 

Philadelphia 194 

Detroit 168 

Cleveland 157 

Pittsburgh 121 

Los  Angeles 102 

St.  Louis 100 

Baltimore 96 

Buffalo 89 

San  Francisco 86 

Minneapolis 75 

Milwaukee 66 

Indianapolis 61 

Boston 60 


Portland,  Ore 51 

Newark,  N.  J 51 

Syracuse 51 

Kansas  City 49 

Washington 48 

New  Orleans 48 

Columbus,  O 45 


Seattle.  .  . 
Oakland.  . 
Cincinnati . 
St.  Paul .  . 
Rochester . 
Denver.  .  . 
Omaha.  . 


45 
44 
42 
42 
42 
40 
35 


IN  THE  STATES 

Alabama 196      Georgia 219 

Arizona 93       Idaho 158 

Arkansas 239      Illinois 1027 

California 676      Indiana 602 

Colorado 260 


Connecticut...  122 


Iowa.  . 

Kansas . 


359 
429 


Delaware 35      Kentucky 252 

Florida 158      Louisiana..  241 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION 


91 


Maine 255 

Maryland 177 

Massachusetts 558 

Michigan 459 

Minnesota 618 

Mississippi 118 

Missouri 681 

Montana 161 

Nebraska 481 

Nevada 30 

New  Hampshire 132 

New  Jersey 370 

New  Mexico 84 

New  York 1695 

North  Carolina 203 

North  Dakota ..  315 


Ohio 1095 

Oklahoma 343 

Oregon 249 

Pennsylvania 1533 

Rhode  Island 49 

South  Carolina 119 

South  Dakota 246 

Tennessee 198 

Texas 839 

Utah 157 

Vermont 53 

Virginia 396 

Washington 343 

West  Virginia 191 

Wisconsin 498 

Wyoming 67 


APPENDIX  B 

Comparative  imports  of  Motion-Picture  Film  into  the  United 
States  from  all  Countries  and  from  Five  European  Countries 
(England,  France,  Italy,  Germany,  and  the  United  Kingdom), 
for  Fiscal  Years  Ending  June  30,  1911  to  1918,  and  Calendar 
Years  1918  to  1921. 


YEARS 
1911.. 

1912.. 
1913.. 
1914.. 
1915.. 
1916.. 
1917.. 
1918.. 
1919.. 
1919.. 
1920.. 
192 Ib. 


ALL 

SELECTED 

COUNTRIES 

COUNTRIES 

LINEAR  FEET 

LINEAR  FEET 

(a) 

(a) 

(a) 

(a) 

(a) 

(a) 

44,717,000 

44,243,000 

61,402,000 

61,401,000 

58,491,000 

58,488,000 

52,294,000 

52,292,000 

47,463,000 

47,368,000 

25,709,000 

25,614,000 

13,747,000 

13,502,000 

99,829,000 

99,716,000 

122,975,000 

120,551,000 

92 


MOTION  PICTURES 


EXPOSED 

ALL  SELECTED 

YEARS                                                  COUNTRIES  COUNTRIES 

LINEAR  FEET  LINEAR  FEET 

1911 11,725,000  10,422,000 

1912 14,275,000  12,710,000 

1913 15,674,000  13,880,000 

1914 20,057,000  18,106,000 

1915 10,789,000  9,150,000 

1916 7,507,000  6,520,000 

1917 5,835,000  3,738,000 

1918 4,088,000  3,191,000 

1919 2,268,000  1,670,000 

1919 2,920,000  2,002,000 

1920 6,233,000  4,385,000 

1921b 7,375,000  5,601,000 

TOTAL  

ALL  SELECTED 

YEARS                     COUNTRIES  COUNTRIES 

LINEAR  FEET  LINEAR  FEET 

1911 11,725,000  10,422,000 

1912 14,275,000  12,710,000 

1913 15,674,000  13,880,000 

1914 64,774,000  62,349,000 

1915 72,192,000  70,551,000 

1916 65,998,000  65,008,000 

1917 58,130,000  56,029,000 

1918 51,551,000  50,559,000 

1919 27,977,000  27,314,000 

1919 16,667,000  15,505,000 

1920 106,062,000  104,091,000 

1921b 130,349,000  126,152,000 

a — Figures  prior  to  1914  are  not  available, 
b — Nine  months  ending  Sept.  30. 

Imports  of  Motion-Picture  Film  into  the  United  States  for 
Fiscal  Years  Ending  June  30,  1911  to  1918,  and  for  Calendar 
Years  1918  to  1921. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION 


93 


YEARS 

LINEAR  FEET 

VALUE 

1911  

11,725,000 

$685,000 

1912  

14,275,000 

1,004,000 

1913  

15,674,000 

1,331,000 

1914  

20,057,000 

1,412,000 

1915  

10,789,000 

671,000 

1916  

7,507,000 

482,000 

1917  

5,835,000 

675,000 

1918  

4,088,000 

343,000 

1919  

2,268,000 

293,000 

1919  

2,920,000 

500,000 

1920  

6,233,000 

933,000 

1921b  

7,375,000 

1,060,000 

YEARS 

1911  

LINEAR  FEET 

(a) 

VALUE 

(a) 

1912  

(a) 

(a) 

1913  

(a) 

(a) 

1914  

44,717,000 

$890,000 

1915  

61,402,000 

968,000 

1916  

58,491,000 

750,000 

1917  

52,294,000 

802,000 

1918  

47,463,000 

739,000 

1919  

25,709,000 

420,000 

1919  

13,747,000 

283,000 

1920  

99,829,000 

1,698,000 

1921b  

122,975,000 

2,338,000 

YEARS 
1911  

LINEAR  FEET 
11,725,000 

VALUE 

$685,000 

1912  

14,275,000 

1,004,000 

1913  

15,674,000 

1,331,000 

1914  

64,774,000 

2,302,000 

1915  

72,192,000 

1,639,000 

1916  

65,998,000 

1,232,000 

1917  

58,130,000 

1,478,000 

1918  

51,551,000 

1,082,000 

MOTION  PICTURES 


1919.. 
1919.. 
1920.. 
1921b. 


27,977,000  713,000 

16,667,000  783,000 

106,062,000  2,631,000 

130,349,000  3,397,000 


a — Figures  not  available  prior  to  1914. 
b — Nine  months  ending  Sept.  30. 

United  States  Exports  of  Motion-Picture  Film  for  Fiscal 
Years  Ending  June  30,  1913  to  1918,  and  Calendar  Years  1918 
to  1921. 


YEARS 
1913  

EXPOSED 
LINEAR  FEET 

32,192,000 

UNEXPOSED 
LINEAR  FEET 

80,035,000 

TOTAL 
LINEAR  FEET 

112,227,000 

1914  

32,690,000 

155,360  000 

192,050,000 

1915  

35,987,000 

115,067,000 

150,054,000 

1916  

158,752,000 

72,299,000 

231,051,000 

1917  

128,550,000 

49,486  000 

178,036,000 

1918  

84,547,000 

57,995,000 

142,542,000 

1918  

79,888,000 

71,549,000 

151,437,000 

1919  

153,237,000 

120,042,000 

273,279  000 

1920....  

175,233,000 

62  915  000 

238  148  000 

1921.. 

111.585.000 

31.015.000 

142.600.000 

a — Nine  months  ending  Sept.  30. 
U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Commerce  Reports,  January  2,  1922,  p.  34  ff . 

APPENDIX  C 
English  Censorship  Rules 

Pictures  containing  the  following  are  condemned: 

(1)  Materialization  of  the  conventional  figure  of  Christ. 

(2)  Unauthorized  use  of  Royal  names,  public  characters,  and 

well-known  members  of  society. 

(3)  Inflammatory  political  sub-titles. 

(4)  Indecorous  and  inexpedient  titles  and  sub-titles. 

(5)  Sub-titles  in  the  nature  of  swearing. 

(6)  Cruelty  to  animals,  including  cock-fights. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  95 

(7)  Irreverent  treatment  of  religious  observances  and  beliefs. 

(8)  Making  young  girls  drunk. 

(9)  Excessive  drunkenness. 

(10)  Brutality  and  torture  to  women. 

(11)  Subjects  in  which  crime  is  the  dominant  feature. 

(12)  Commitment  of  crime  by  children. 

(13)  Criminal  poisoning  by  dissemination  of  germs. 

(14)  The  practice  of  the  third  degree  in  the  United  States. 

(15)  Cumulative  effect  of  crime. 

(16)  Murders  with  realistic  and  gruesome  details. 

(17)  Executions  and  crucifixions. 

(18)  Cruelty  to  children. 

(19)  Excessive  cruelty  and  torture  to  adults. 

(20)  Fights  showing  extreme  brutality  and  gruesome  details. 

(21)  Gruesome  incidents. 

(22)  Actual  scenes  of  branding  men  and  animals. 

(23)  Women  fighting  with  knives. 

(24)  Doubtful  characters  exalted  to  heroes. 

(25)  Nude  figures. 

(26)  Offensive  vulgarity  and  indecent  gestures. 

(27)  Improper  exhibition  of  feminine  underclothing. 

(28)  Impropriety  in  dress. 

(29)  Indecorous  dancing. 

(30)  Reference  to  controversial  or  international  politics. 

(31)  Scenes  calculated  to  inflame  racial  hatred. 

(32)  Incidents  having  a  tendency  to  disparage  friendly  rela- 

tions with  our  Allies. 

(33)  Scenes  dealing  with  India  and  other  Dependencies  by 

which  the  religious  beliefs  and  racial  susceptibilities  of 
their  people  may  be  wounded. 

(34)  Antagonistic  relations  of  Capital  and  Labour  and  scenes 

showing  conflict  between  the  protagonists. 

(35)  Scenes  tending  to  disparage  public  characters  and  public 

institutions. 

(36)  Disparagement  of  the  institution  of  marriage. 

(37)  Misrepresentation  of  police  methods. 

(38)  Holding  up  the  King's  uniform  to  contempt  or  ridicule. 


96  MOTION  PICTURES 

(39)  Scenes  in  which  British  officers  are  seen  in  a  discreditable 

light  in  their  relations  with  Eastern  peoples. 

(40)  Prolonged  and  harrowing  details  in  deathbed  scenes. 

(41)  Medical  operations. 

(42)  Excessive  revolver  shooting. 

(43)  Advocacy  of  the  doctrine  of  free  love. 

(44)  Seduction  of  girls  and  attempts  thereat  treated  without 

due  restraint. 

(45)  Attempted  criminal  assaults  on  women. 

(46)  Scenes  indicating  that  a  criminal  assault  on  a  woman 

has  just  been  perpetrated. 

(47)  Salacious  wit. 

(48)  "First  night"  scenes. 

(49)  Scenes  dealing  with,  or  suggestive  of,  immorality. 

(50)  Indelicate  sexual  situations. 

(51)  Holding  up  the  sacrifice  of  a  woman's  virtue  as  laudable. 

(52)  Infidelity  on  the  part  of  husband  justifying  adultery  on 

the  part  of  wife. 

(53)  Bedroom  and  bathroom  scenes  of  an  equivocal  character. 

(54)  Prostitution  and  procuration. 

(55)  Effect  of  venereal  disease,  inherited  or  acquired. 

(56)  Confinements  and  puerperal  pains. 

(57)  Illegal  operations. 

(58)  Deliberate  adoption  of  a  life  of  immorality,  justifiable  or 

extenuated. 

(59)  Disorderly  houses. 

(60)  Women  promiscuously  taking  up  men. 

(61)  Dead  bodies. 

(62)  "Clutching  hands." 

(63)  Subjects  in  which  sympathy  is  enlisted  for  the  criminals. 

(64)  Animals  gnawing  men  and  children. 

(65)  Realistic  scenes  of  epilepsy. 

(66)  Trial  scenes  of  important  personages  that  are  sub  judice. 

(67)  Suggestion  of  incest. 

— The  Times,  London,  Supplement,  February  21,  1922,  p.  x. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  97 

APPENDIX  D 
STANDARDS  OF  THE  PENNSYLVANIA  BOARD  OF  CENSORS 

(1)  The  Board  will  condemn  pictures,  and  parts  of  pictures, 
dealing  with  "white  slavery".     The  procuration  and  prostitution 
in  all  forms,  of  girls,  and  their  confinement  for  immoral  purposes 
may  not  be  shown  upon  the  screen,  and  will  be  disapproved. 
Views  of  prostitutes  and  houses  of  ill-fame  will  be  disapproved. 

(2)  Pictures,  and  parts  of  pictures,  which  deal  with  the  seduc-    i 
tion  of  women,  particularly  the  betrayal  of  young  girls,  and   > 
assaults  upon  women,  with  immoral  intent,  will  be  disapproved. 

(3)  Pre-natal  and  childbed  scenes,  and  subtitles  describing 
them,  will  be  disapproved. 

(4)  Pictures,  and  parts  of  pictures,  dealing  with  the  drug     • 
habit;  e.  g.,  t  e  use  of  opium,  morphine,  cocaine,  etc.,  will  be    / 
disapproved.     The  traffic  in  habit-forming  drugs  is  forbidden 
and  visualized  scenes  of  their  use  will  be  disapproved. 

(5)  Scenes  showing  the  modus  operandi  of  criminals  which 
are  suggestive  and  incite  to  evil  action,  such  as  murder,  poison- 
ing, house-breaking,  safe-robbery,  pocket-picking,  the  lighting 
and  throwing  of  bombs,  the  use  of  ether,  chloroform,  etc.,  to 
render  men  and  women  unconscious,  binding  and  gagging,  will 
be  disapproved. 

(6)  Gruesome  and  unduly  distressing  scenes  will  be  disap- 
proved.    These   include  shooting,   stabbing,   profuse  bleeding, 
prolonged  views  of  men  dying  and  of  corpses,  lashing  and  whip- 
ping, and  other  torture  scenes,  hangings,  lynchings,  electrocu- 
tions, surgical  operations,  and  views  of  persons  in  delirium  or 
insane. 

(7)  Studio  and  other  scenes,  in  which  the  human  form  is 
shown  in  the  nude  or  the  body  is  unduly  exposed,  will  be  dis- 
approved. 

(8)  Pictures,  and  parts  of  pictures,  dealing  with  abortion  and 
malpractice,  will  be  disapproved.      These  will  include  themse   j 
and   incidents   having  to  do  with   eugenics,   "birth  control",    ' 
"race  suicide"  and  similar  subjects. 


98  MOTION  PICTURES 

(9)  Stories,  or  scenes  holding  up  to  ridicule  and  reproach 
races,  classes,  or  other  social  groups,  as  well  as  the  irreverent  and 

•  sacrilegious  treatment  of  religious  bodies  or  other  things  held 
to  be  sacred  will  be  disapproved.     The  materialization  of  the 
figure  of  Christ  may  be  disapproved. 

(10)  Pictures  which  deal  with   counterfeiting,   will   be  dis- 
approved. 

/(ll)  Scenes  showing  men  and  women  living  together  without 
marriage,  and  in  adultery,  will  be  disapproved.  Discussion  of 
the  question  of  the  consummation  of  marriage,  in  pictures,  will 
be  disapproved. 

(12)  The  brutal  treatment  of  children  and  of  animals  may 
lead  to  the  disapproval  of  the  theme,  or  of  incidents  in  film 
stories. 

(13)  The  use  of  profane  and  objectionable  language  in  sub- 
titles, will  be  disapproved. 

(14)  Objectionable  titles,  as  well  as  subtitles  of  pictures,  will 
be  disapproved. 

•  (15)  Views    of    incendiarism,    burning,    wrecking    and    the 
/    destruction  of  property,  which  may  put  like  action  into  the 

/     minds  of  those  of  evil  instincts,  or  may  degrade  the  morals  of 

the  young,  will  be  disapproved. 

«•<•     (16)  Gross  and  offensive  drunkenness,  especially  if  women 
have  a  part  in  the  scenes,  will  be  disapproved. 

(17)  Pictures  which  deal  at  length  with  gun  play,  and  the  use 
of  knives,  and  are  set  in  the  underworld,  will  be  disapproved. 

'When  the  whole  theme  is  crime,  unrelieved  by  other  scenes,  the 
film  will  be  disapproved.  Prolonged  fighting  scenes  will  be 
shortened,  and  brutal  fights  will  be  wholly  disapproved. 

(18)  Vulgarities  of  a  gross  kind,  such  as  often  appear  in 
slapstick  and  other  screen  comedies,  will  be  disapproved.  Comedy 
which  burlesques  morgues,  funerals,  hospitals,  insane  asylums, 
the  lying-in  of  women  and  houses  of  ill-fame,  will  be  disapproved. 

.       (19)  Sensual  kissing  and  love-making  scenes,  men  and  women 
/   in  bed  together  and  indelicate  sexual   situations,  whether  in 
comedies  or  pictures  of  other  classes  will  be  disapproved.     Bath- 
ing scenes,  which  pass  the  limits  of  propriety,  lewd  and  immodest 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  99 

dancing,  the  needless  exhibition  of  women  in  their  night-dresses 
or  underclothing,  will  be  disapproved. 

(20)  Views  of  women  smoking  will  not  be  disapproved  as  such, 
but  when  women  are  shown  in  suggestive  positions  or  their 
manner  of  smoking  is  suggestive  or  degrading,  such  scenes  will 
be  disapproved. 

(21)  Pictures  or  parts  of  pictures  which  deal  with  venereal 
disease,  of  any  kind,  will  be  disapproved. 

(22)  That  the  theme  or  story  of  a  picture  is  adapted  from  a 
publication,  whether  classical  or  not;  or  that  portions  of  a  picture 
follow  paintings  or  other  illustrations,  is  not  a  sufficient  reason 
for  the  approval  of  a  picture  or  portions  of  a  picture. 

(23)  Themes  or  incidents  in  picture  stories,  which  are  designed 
to  inflame  the  mind  to  improper  adventures,  or  to  establish  false 
standards  of  conduct,  coming  under  the  foregoing  classes,  or  of 
other  kinds,  will  be  disapproved.     Pictures  will  be  judged  as  a 
whole,  with  a  view  to  their  final  total  effect;  those  portraying 
evil  in  any  form  which  may  be  easily  remembered  or  emulated, 
will  be  disapproved. 

(24)  Banners,  posters  or  other  advertising  matter,  concerning 
motion  pictures,  must  follow  the  rules  laid  down  for  the  pictures 
themselves.     That  which  may  not  be  used  upon  the  screen, 
must  not  be  used  to  announce  and  direct  public  attention  to  the 
picture,  in  the  lobby,  on  the  street,  or  in  any  other  form. 

Pennsylvania  State  Board  of  Censors,  Rules  and  Standards, 
Harrisburg,  Pa.,  1918,  p.  15  ff. 

APPENDIX  E 

SAMPLES  OF  ELIMINATIONS  BY  THE  NATIONAL  BOARD  OF 
REVIEW  OF  MOTION  PICTURES 


Film  1  —  "In   the  action  where  Leslie-  is  honeymooning  in 
Italy,  where  she  and  -  are  performing  their  toilet  in  the  morning 
and  -  sees  the  woman  in  the  bath,  (1)  cut  this  view  of  the 
woman  where  the  maid  takes  the  robe  off  her  and  she  steps  do 
in  the  pool,  thus  eliminating  those  scenes  where  she  appears  nu 


100  MOTION  PICTURES 

In  the  scene  of  the  orgy,  to  which  the  roue  takes ,  (2)  cut 

the  close  view  of  the  dancer  on  the  table  at  the  point  before  her 
draperies  are  entirely  unwound,  so  as  to  eliminate  that  part  of 
the  shot  where  her  body  appears  plainly  through  the  transparency 
of  her  skirt.  (3)  Eliminate  the  second  view  of  the  colored 
attendant  where  he  sees  the  silhouette  of  the  dancer  on  the  wall, 
and  makes  gestures  at  it.  (4)  Cut  to  flashes  the  close-ups  of  the 
dancer  lying  on  the  table  where  she  makes  a  seductive  play 

for ,  eliminating  that  close-up  of  the  dancer,  photographed 

full  on,  where  she  is  lying  on  the  table  so  that  her.  breasts  appear. 
(5)  Cut  the  last  view  of  the  dancer,  where  she  makes  a  play 

for 's  roue  friend,  at  the  point  before  he  fondles  and  kisses 

her. 

Film  2 — "Reel  1:  (1)  In  the  scene  where enters  the  water, 

cut  to  the  point  where  she  is  already  waist-deep,  thus  eliminating 
that  part  where  she  enters  and  stands  in  the  nude.  Reel  6:  In 

the  scene  where dances  in 's  house :  (1)  Eliminate  the  first 

view  of  the  men  at  the  table  watching  her  dance  (except  a  flash 
to  be  taken  from  the  end  of  this  scene,  and  which  is  to  be  cut  to 
avoid  a  jump  and  to  preserve  continuity  between  the  scene 
where  the  sculptor  rises  from  the  table  to  go  to  the  dancer's 
assistance  and  the  scene  where  he  carries  her  out — in  other 
words,  just  preceding  the  scene  indicated  by  cut  No.  5).  (2) 
Cut  the  scene  (long  shot)  where  the  ribbons  are  entirely  unwound 
from  the  dancer  at  the  point  where  they  are  unwinding  just 
above  the  knees.  (3)  Cut  the  close-up  of  the  dancer's  legs  with 
the  ribbons  falling  about  them  so  as  to  use  only  the  middle  part 
which  gives  the  idea  of  the  ribbons  falling  but  does  not  show  at 
length  the  girl's  bare  legs.  (4)  Eliminate  entirely  the  scene  of 
the  men  jesting  and  holding  out  their  glasses  as  the  dancer 
becomes  uncovered.  (5)  In  the  scene  where  the  sculptor  lifts  the 
dancer  in  his  arms  to  carry  her  out,  cut  the  head  of  the  scene  so 
that  it  begins  with  the  dancer  already  lifted  in  his  arms  and 
already  in  the  state  of  being  carried  well  toward  the  door.  (6) 
Shorten  at  the  tail  the  scene  where  the  sculptor  carries  the 
dancer  into  the  hall,  so  as  to  leave  the  action  of  her  kicking  in 
his  arms  as  short  as  possible — in  other  words,  to  where  the  butler 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  101 

in  the  background  starts  off  to  get  a  cloak.  (Split  the  long 
shot  of  the  guests  crowding  about  the  doorway  of  the  dining 
rooms,  so  as  to  use  part  of  it  to  cut  in  to  avoid  a  jump  and  give 
continuity.)  (7)  In  the  scene  in  the  hall  where  the  butler  brings 
the  cloak,  cut  it  up  to  the  point  where  the  butler  is  about  to  put 
the  cloak  over  her.  (8)  Eliminate  entirely  the  scene  (long  shot) 
in  the  hall  where  the  dancer  is  seen  standing,  and  comes  toward 
the  sculptor.  (9)  Cut  the  following  close-up  to  the  point  after 
she  kisses  him  where  she  stands  looking  at  him  in  a  troubled 
way,  thus  eliminating  the  action  where  she  kisses  him  in  abandon. 

(10)  Where  the  butler  brings  her  into  the boudoir  cut  at  the 

point  where  he  places  her  on  the  couch.  (This  scene,  as  cut, 
is  to  be  cut  back  into  the  scene  where  the  sculptor  is  sitting  in 
the  park  outside.)  (11)  In  the  action  where  the  butler  is  leaving 
the  boudoir,  cut  the  close-up  of  the  dancer  on  the  couch  where 
she  beckons  him  to  come  to  her. 

Film  3 — "(1)  In  Reel  1:  Cut  the  first  scene  of  the  girl  in  the 
bathtub  at  the  point  where  she  gets  into  the  tub  with  the  maid 
holding  a  cloak  in  front  of  her.  (2)  Eliminate  the  enlarged 
view  of  the  girl  in  the  bathtub  where  she  is  soaping  herself. 
(3)  Cut  the  view  of  the  man  looking  through  the  key-hole  to  one 
flash.  (4)  Eliminate  the  subtitle,  'Hot  Dogs'.  (5)  Eliminate 
the  subtitle  to  the  effect  that  a  cake  of  soap  does  not  have  such 
a  hard  life  after  all.  (6)  Later  in  the  picture  where is  pre- 
paring for  her  wedding,  eliminate  the  subtitle,  ' bares  her 

^trousseau  and  other  things.'  (7)  Eliminate  the  scene  imme- 
diately following  this  subtitle  against  the  black  drop  where 

is  posing  in  negligee,  opening  this  sequence  with  the  scene  where 
she  has  her  maids  around  her.  (8)  Eliminate  the  close  view  of 

in  her  negligee  where  the  camera  is  tilted  from  her  feet  to  her 

head.  (9)  In  the  last  reel  eliminate  the  subtitle,  ' brings 

her  little  Boalt  to  his  little  Knutt  in  time  to  couple  them.' 

Film  4 — "In  part  2  of  episode  11:  Eliminate  close-ups  of 

the  torturing  of  the so  that  there  will  not  be  more  than  two 

close-ups  of  girl's  face,  two  of  detective's  face  and  one  showing 
forcing  back  of  girl's  thumb." 

From  mimeographed  material  issued  by  the  National  Board  of  Review. 


102  MOTION  PICTURES 

APPENDIX  F 

MUTUAL  FILM  CORPORATION  vs.  INDUSTRIAL  COMMISSION 

OF  OHIO,  236  U.  S.  SUPREME  COURT  RECORDS, 

PP.  239-247 

"Complainant  directs  its  argument  to  three  propositions: 

(1)  The  statute  in  controversy  imposes  an  unlawful  burden 
on  interstate  commerce ;  (2)  it  violates  the  freedom  of  speech  and 
publication  guaranteed  by  Section  11,  art.  1,  of  the  constitution 
of  the  State  of  Ohio;  and  (3)  it  attempts  to  delegate  legislative 
power  to  censors  and  to  other  boards  to  determine  whether  the 
statute  offends  in  the  particulars  designated. 

"It  is  necessary  to  consider  only  Sections  3,  4  and  5"  (of  the 
Ohio  Censorship  Act). 

"Section  3  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  board  to  examine  and 
cen.  or  motion  picture  films  to  be  pub  icly  exhibited  and  displayed 
in  the  State  of  Ohio.  The  films  are  required  to  be  exhibited  to 
the  board  before  they  are  delivered  to  the  exhibitor  for  exhibition, 
for  which  a  fee  is  charged. 

"Section  4.  "Only  such  films  as  are  in  the  judgment  and 
discretion  of  the  board  of  censors  of  a  moral,  educational  or 
amusing  and  harmless  character  shall  be  passed  and  approved 
by  such  board."  The  films  are  required  to  be  stamped  or 
designated  in  a  proper  manner. 

"Section  5.  The  board  may  work  in  conjunction  with  censor 
boards  of  other  States  as  a  censor  congress,  and  the  action  of 
such  congress  in  approving  or  rejecting  films  shall  be  considered 
as  the  action  of  the  state  board,  and  all  the  films  passed,  ap- 
proved, stamped  and  numbered  by  such  congress,  when  the  fees 
therefor  are  paid  shall  be  considered  approved  by  the  board. 

"By  Section  7  a  penalty  is  imposed  for  such  exhibition  of  films 
without  the  approval  of  the  board,  and  by  Section  8  any  person 
dissatisfied  with  the  order  of  the  board  is  given  the  same  rights 
and  remedies  for  hearing  and  reviewing,  amendment  or  vacation 
of  the  order"  as  is  provided  :n  the  case  of  persons  dissatisfied 
with  the  orders  of  the  industrial  commission. 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  103 

"The  censorship,  therefore,  is  only  of  films  intended  for 
exhibition  in  Ohio,  and  we  can  immediately  put  to  one  side  the 
contention  that  it  imposes  a  burden  on  interstate  commerce. 
It  is  true  that  according  to  the  allegations  of  the  bill  some  of  the 
films  of  complainant  are  shipped  from  Detroit,  Michigan,  but 
they  are  distributed  to  exhibitors,  renters  and  lessors  in  Ohio, 
for  exhibition  in  Ohio,  and  this  determines  the  application  of  the 
statute.  In  other  words,  it  is  only  films  which  are  'to  be 
publicly  exhibited  and  displayed  in  the  State  of  Ohio'  which  are 
required  to  be  examined  and  censored.  It  would  be  straining  the 
doctrine  of  original  packages  to  say  the  films  retain  that  form 
and  composition  even  when  unrolling  and  exhibiting  to  audiences, 
or  being  ready  for  renting  for  the  purpose  of  exhibition  within 
the  State,  could  not  be  disclosed  to  the  state  officers.  If  this 
be  so,  whatever  the  power  of  the  State  to  prevent  the  exhibition 
of  films  not  approved — and  for  the  purpose  of  this  contention 
we  must  assume  the  power  is  otherwise  plenary — films  brought 
from  another  state,  and  only  because  so  brought,  would  be 
exempt  from  the  power,  and  films  made  in  the  State  would  be 
subject  to  it.  There  must  be  some  time  when  the  films  are 
subject  to  the  law  of  the  State,  and  necessarily  when  they  are 
in  the  hands  of  the  exchanges  ready  to  be  rented  to  exhibitors 
or  have  passed  to  the  latter,  they  are  in  consumption,  and 
mingled  as  much  as  from  their  nature  they  can  be  with  other 
property  of  the  State. 

"It  is  true  that  the  statute  requires  them  to  be  submitted  to 
the  Board  before  they  are  delivered  to  the  exhibitor,  but  we 
have  seen  that  the  films  are  shipped  to  'exchanges'  and  by  them 
rented  to  exhibitors,  and  the  'exchanges'  are  described  as '  nothing 
more  or  less  than  circulating  libraries  or  clearing  houses.'  And 
one  film  'serves  in  many  theatres  from  day  to  day  until  it  is 
worn  out.' 

"The  next  contention  is  that  the  statute  violates  the  freedom 
of  speech  and  publication  guaranteed  by  the  Ohio  constitution. 
In  its  discussion  counsel  have  gone  into  a  very  elaborate  descrip- 
tion of  moving  picture  exhibitions  and  their  many  useful  purposes 
as  graphic  expressions  of  opinions  and  sentiments,  as  exponents 


104  MOTION  PICTURES 

of  policies,  as  teachers  of  science  and  history,  as  useful,  interesting, 
amusing,  educational  and  moral.  And  a  list  of  the  'campaigns', 
as  counsel  call  them,  which  may  be  carried  on  is  given.  We 
may  concede  the  praise.  It  is  not  questioned  by  the  Ohio 
statute  and  under  its  comprehensive  description  'campaigns' 
of  an  infinite  variety  may  be  conducted.  Films  of  a  'moral, 
educational  or  amusing  and  harmless  character  shall  be  passed 
and  approved'  are  the  words  of  the  statute.  No  exhibition, 
therefore,  or  'campaign'  of  complainant  will  be  prevented  if 
its  pictures  have  those  qualities.  Therefore,  however  mis- 
sionary of  opinion  films  are  or  may  become,  however  educational 
or  entertaining,  there  is  no  impediment  to  their  value  or  effect 
in  the  Ohio  statute.  But  they  may  be  used  for  evil,  and  against 
that  possibility  the  statute  was  enacted.  Their  power  of 
amusement,  and,  it  may  be,  education,  the  audiences  they  assem- 
ble, not  of  women  alone  nor  of  men  alone,  but  together,  not  of 
adults  only,  but  of  children,  make  them  the  more  insidious  in 
corruption  by  a  pretense  of  worthy  purpose  or  if  they  should 
degenerate  from  worthy  purpose.  Indeed,  we  may  go  beyond 
that  possibility.  They  take  their  attraction  from  the  general 
interest,  eager  and  wholesome,  it  may  be  in  their  subjects,  but 
a  prurient  interest  may  be  excited  and  appealed  to.  Besides, 
there  are  some  things  which  should  not  have  pictorial  representa- 
tion in  public  places  and  to  all  audiences.  And  not  only  the 
State  of  Ohio  but  other  States  have  considered  it  to  be  in  the 
interest  of  the  public  morals  and  welfare  to  supervise  moving 
picture  exhibitions.  We  would  have  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the 
facts  of  the  world  to  regard  the  precaution  unreasonable  or  the 
legislation  to  effect  it  a  mere  wanton  interference  with  personal 
liberty. 

"We  do  not  understand  that  a  possibility  of  an  evil  employ- 
ment of  films  is  denied,  but  a  freedom  from  the  censorship  of  the 
law  and  a  precedent  right  of  exhibition  are  asserted,  subsequent 
responsibility  only,  it  is  contended,  being  incurred  for  abuse. 
In  other  words,  as  we  have  seen,  the  constitution  of  Ohio  is 
invoked  and  an  exhibition  of  films  is  assimilated  to  the  freedom 
of  speech,  writing  and  publication  assured  by  that  instrument 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  105 

and  for  the  abuse  of  which  only  is  there  responsibility,  and,  it  is 
insisted,  that  as  no  law  may  be  passed  'to  restrain  the  liberty 
of  speech  or  of  the  press,'  no  law  may  be  passed  to  subject 
moving  pictures  to  censorship  before  their  exhibition. 

"  We  need  not  pause  to  dilate  upon  the  freedom  of  opinion  and 
its  expression,  and  whether  by  speech,  writing  or  printing.  They 
are  too  certain  to  need  discussion — of  such  conceded  value  as 
to  need  no  supporting  praise.  Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  of 
their  breadth  nor  that  their  underlying  safeguard  is,  to  use  the 
words  of  another,  '  that  opinion  is  free  and  that  conduct  alone  is 
amenable  to  the  law.' 

"Are  moving  pictures  within  the  principle,  as  it  is  contended 
they  are?  They,  indeed,  may  be  mediums  of  thought,  but  so 
are  many  things.  So  is  the  theatre,  the  circus,  and  all  other 
shows  and  spectacles,  and  their  performances  may  be  thus 
brought  by  the  like  reasoning  under  the  same  immunity  from 
repression  or  supervision  as  the  public  press, — made  the  same 
agencies  of  civil  liberty. 

"Counsel  have  not  shrunk  from  this  extension  of  their  conten- 
tion and  cite  a  case  in  this  court  where  the  title  of  drama  was 
accorded  to  pantomime ; l  and  such  and  other  spectacles  are 
said  by  counsel  to  be  publications  of  ideas,  satisfying  the  defini- 
tion of  the  dictionaries, — that  is,  and  we  quote  counsel,  a  means 
of  making  or  announcing  publicly  something  that  otherwise 
might  have  remained  private  or  unknown, — and  this  being 
peculiarly  the  purpose  and  effect  of  moving  pictures  they  come 
directly,  it  is  contended,  under  the  protection  of  the  Ohio 
constitution. 

"The  first  impulse  of  the  mind  is  to  reject  the  contention. 
We  immediately  feel  that  the  argument  is  wrong  or  strained 
which  extends  the  guaranties  of  free  opinion  and  speech  to  the 
multitudinous  shows  which  are  advertised  on  the  billboards  of 
our  cities  and  towns  and  which  regards  them  as  emblems  of 
public  safety,  to  use  the  words  of  Lord  Camden,  quoted  by 
counsel,  and  which  seeks  to  bring  motion  pictures  and  other 
spectacles  into  practical  and  legal  similitude  to  a  free  press  and 
liberty  of  opinion. 

1  Kalem  vs.  Harper  Bros.,  222  U.  S.  55. 


106  MOTION  PICTURES 

"The  judicial  sense  supporting  the  common  sense  of  the 
country  is  against  the  contention.  As  pointed  out  by  the 
District  Court,  the  police  power  is  familiarly  exercised  in  granting 
or  withholding  licenses  for  theatrical  performances  as  a  means 
of  their  regulation.  The  court  cited  the  following  cases:  Marmet 
v.  State,  45  Ohio,  63,  72,  73;  Baker  v.  Cincinnati,  11  Ohio  St.  534; 
Commonwealth  v.  McGann,  213  Massachusetts,  213,  215;  People 
v.  Steele,  231  Illinois,  340,  344,  345. 

"The  exercise  of  the  power  upon  moving  picture  exhibitions 
has  been  sustained.  Greenburg  v.  Western  TurfAss'n,  148  Califor- 
nia, 126;  Laurelle  v.  Bush,  17  Cal.  App.  409;  State  v.  Loden,  117 
Maryland,  373;  Block  v.  Chicago,  239  Illinois,  251;  Higgins  v. 
Lacroix,  119  Minnesota,  145.  See  also  State  v.  Morris,  76  All. 
Rep.  479;  People  v.  Gaynor,  137  N.  Y.  S.  196,  199;  McKenzie  v. 
McClellan,  116  N.  Y.  S.  645,  646. 

"It  seems  not  to  have  occurred  to  anybody  in  the  cited  cases 
that  freedom  of  opinion  was  repressed  in  the  exertion  of  the 
power  which  was  illustrated.  The  rights  of  property  were  only 
considered  as  involved.  It  cannot  be  put  out  of  view  that  the 
exhibition  of  moving  pictures  is  a  business  pure  and  simple, 
originated  and  conducted  for  profit,  like  other  spectacles,  not 
to  be  regarded,  nor  intended  to  be  regarded  by  the  Ohio  con- 
stitution, we  think,  as  part  of  the  press  of  the  country  or  as 
organs  of  public  opinion.  They  are  mere  representations  of 
events,  of  ideas  and  sentiments  published  and  known,  vivid, 
useful  and  entertaining  no  doubt,  but,  as  we  have  said,  capable 
of  evil,  having  power  for  it,  the  greater  because  of  their  attrac- 
tiveness and  manner  of  exhibition.  It  was  this  capability  and 
power,  and  it  may  be  in  experience  of  them,  that  induced  the 
State  of  Ohio,  in  addition  to  prescribing  penalties  for  immoral 
exhibitions,  as  it  does  in  its  Criminal  Code,  to  require  censorship 
before  exhibition,  as  it  does  by  the  act  under  review.  We 
cannot  regard  this  as  beyond  the  power  of  government. 

"It  does  not  militate  against  the  strength  of  these  considera- 
tions that  motion  pictures  may  be  used  to  amuse  and  instruct 
in  other  places  than  theatres — in  churches,  for  instance,  and  in 
Sunday  schools  and  public  schools.  Nor  are  we  called  upon  to 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  107 

say  on  this  record  whether  such  exceptions  would  be  within  the 
provisions  of  the  statute  nor  to  anticipate  that  it  will  be  so 
declared  by  the  state  courts  or  so  enforced  by  the  state  officers. 

"The  next  contention  of  complainant  is  that  the  Ohio  statute 
is  a  delegation  of  legislative  power  and  void  for  that  if  not  for 
the  other  reasons  charged  against  it,  which  we  have  discussed. 
While  administration  and  legislation  are  quite  distinct  powers, 
the  line  which  separates  exactly  their  exercise  is  not  easy  to  define 
in  words.  It  is  best  recognized  in  illustrations.  Undoubtedly 
the  legislature  must  declare  the  policy  of  the  law  and  fix  the  legal 
principles  which  are  to  control  in  given  cases;  but  an  adminis- 
trative body  may  be  invested  with  the  power  to  ascertain  the 
facts  and  conditions  to  which  the  policy  and  principles  apply. 
If  this  could  not  be  done  there  would  be  infinite  confusion  in  the 
laws,  and  in  an  effort  to  detail  and  to  particularize,  they  would 
miss  sufficiency  both  in  provision  and  execution. 

"The  objection  to  the  statute  is  that  it  furnishes  no  standard 
of  what  is  educational,  moral,  amusing  or  harmless,  and  hence 
leaves  decision  to  arbitrary  judgment,  whim  and  caprice;  or, 
aside  from  those  extremes,  leaving  it  to  the  different  views  which 
might  be  entertained  of  the  effect  of  the  pictures,  permitting  the 
'personal  equation'  to  enter,  resulting  'in  unjust  discrimination 
against  some  propagandist  film,'  while  others  might  be  approved 
without  question.  But  the  statute  by  its  provisions  guards 
against  such  variant  judgments,  and  its  terms,  like  other  general 
terms,  get  precision  from  the  sense  and  experience  of  men  and 
become  certain  and  useful  guides  in  reasoning  and  conduct. 
The  exact  specification  of  the  instances  of  their  application 
would  be  as  impossible  as  the  attempt  would  be  futile.  Upon 
such  sense  and  experience,  therefore,  the  law  properly  relies. 
This  has  many  analogies  and  direct  examples  in  cases,  and  we 
may  cite  Gundling  v.  Chicago,  177  U.  S.  183;  Red  '£'  Oil  Manu- 
facturing Co.  v.  North  Carolina,  222  U.  S.  380;  Bridge  Co.  v. 
United  States,  216  U.  S.  177 ;  Buttfield  v.  Stranahan,  192  U.  S.  470. 
See  also  Waters-Pierce  Oil  Co.  v.  Texas,  212  U.  S.  86.  If  this 
were  not  so,  the  many  administrative  agencies  created  by  the 
state  and  National  governments  would  be  denuded  of  their 


108  MOTION  PICTURES 

utility  and  government  in  some  of  its  most  important  exercises 
become  impossible. 

"To  sustain  the  attack  upon  the  statute  as  a  delegation  of 
legislative  power,  complainant  cites  Harmon  v.  State,  66  Ohio  St. 
249.  In  that  case  a  statute  of  the  State  committing  to  a  certain 
officer  the  duty  of  issuing  a  license  to  one  desiring  to  act  as  an 
engineer  if  'found  trustworthy  and  competent,'  was  declared 
invalid  because,  as  the  court  said,  no  standard  was  furnished  by 
the  General  Assembly  as  to  qualification,  and  no  specification 
as  to  wherein  the  applicant  should  be  trustworthy  and  compe- 
tent, but  all  was  'left  to  the  opinion,  finding  and  caprice  of  the 
examiner.'  The  case  can  be  distinguished.  Besides,  later 
cases  have  recognized  the  difficulty  of  exact  separation  of  the 
powers  of  government,  and  announced  the  principle  that 
legislative  power  is  completely  exercised  where  the  law  'is 
perfect,  final,  and  decisive  in  all  of  its  parts,  and  the  discretion 
given  only  relates  to  its  execution.'  Cases  are  cited  in  illus- 
tration. And  the  principle  finds  further  illustration  in  the 
decisions  of  the  courts  of  lesser  authority  but  which  exhibit  the 
judicial  sense  of  the  State  as  to  the  delegation  of  powers. 

"Section  5  of  the  statute,  which  provides  for  a  censor  congress 
of  the  censor  board  and  the  boards  of  other  States,  is  referred 
to  in  emphasis  of  complainant's  objection  that  the  statute 
delegates  legislative  power.  But,  as  complainant  says,  such  con- 
gress is  'at  present  non-existent  and  nebulous,'  and  we  are, 
therefore,  not  called  upon  to  anticipate  its  action  or  pass  upon 
the  validity  of  Section  5. 

"We  may  close  this  topic  with  a  quotation  of  the  very  apt 
comment  of  the  District  Court  upon  the  statute.  After  re- 
marking that  the  language  of  the  statute  'might  have  been 
extended  by  descriptive  and  illustrative  words,'  but  doubting 
that  it  would  have  been  the  more  intelligible  and  that  probably 
by  being  more  restrictive  might  be  more  easily  thwarted,  the 
court  said :  '  In  view  of  the  range  of  subjects  which  complainants 
claim  to  have  already  compassed,  not  to  speak  of  the  natural 
development  that  will  ensue,  it  would  be  next  to  impossible  to 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  LEGISLATION  109 

devise   language   that   would   be   at   once   comprehensive   and 
automatic. ' 

"In  conclusion  we  may  observe  that  the  Ohio  statute  gives  a 
review  by  the  courts  of  the  State  of  the  decision  of  the  board  of 
censors. " 


''' 


, 


' 


i£  KJUTMEHNHEGIONAl.  UBHABY FAOUTY 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


t 


Unive 
So 


